### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA04080OOOOCMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, J. individually, and L.M., Defendant, cos ### RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPS'NkS OTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY TO AICUEPOSITIONS Counter-Plaintiff, J. tzylOpdrjuough undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Oppositions to Je 's Motion to Reopen Discovery to Take Depositions, and as grounds therefor t follows: ### 1., The Motion Fails to Meet t Court's Requirements to Reopen Discovery 1. On November 27, 2017, the Court entered its Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pre-Trial Deadlines', in which the Court ruled that additional discovery will only be permitted if "'the discovery requests are impacted by the Court's rulings on motions currently pending to be heard on November 29'h, December e and 7'h." At the hearing preceding the Order, the Court outlined the standard by which any such additional discovery requests would be considered: > So what I am going to do is this. Because there are issues that need to be addressed -- and I'm hoping I will have orders out as soon as possible after those hearings are done -- is that I am going to require motions to be filed A copy of the Court's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit \`A'. adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800)OOO(MBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 2 of 8 > on a discovery issue-by-discovery issue, deposition by deposition, so as to find out several things. One, is the need to take that deposition and whether that need has been either clarified or required by virtue of a court order that will be entered subsequently to the commencement of Wednesday's hearings and thereafter on those days that I provided. If it canno be demonstrated to the Court that these witnesses need to be takets i elv as a result the Court's ruling, then those requests will b I because, again, we were set to try the case next week. As . St\* So 20 some-odd deposition, unless they can be prov shown to the Court as being required as a result of the rulirrfihe ourt. will not be entertained. They should have been done before. And if not done before, I will need a reason for that as well. y 7 11/27/2017 Hearing Tr. at 12:11-25 and 13. 2. Thus, Epstein has the burden i that (a) the new depositions are required solely as a result of a recent Court M. (2) that the depositions could not have been taken before. Epstein's motion cl- o meet either requirement, and therefore the motion should be denied.3 # A. Epstein Has Been Aware of the Relevance of the Testimony of These Witnesses for Years and uld Olive Deposed Them Long Before the Discovery Cutoff. 3. i • ial matter, L.M. was a named defendant in this lawsuit filed by Epstein. Allegations ding 1..M.'s role in the Ponzi scheme and her fabricated claim are replete 2 Excerpts of the November 27, 2017 hearing transcript are attached as Exhibit 'B'. 3 Perhaps understanding the Motion's futility, Epstein spends the first four pages arguing about damages and, incredibly, accusing of using L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe for his own personal gain. As Epstein is all too aware, the only person who has forced these victims to do anything against their will is Epstein, and the suggestion that these victims have by now "put behind them" the atrocious sexual misconduct committed against them by Epstein is yet another example of Epstein's indifference to the permanent damage he inflicted on his child victims. "minimal" value. Epstein as fact w' 4. Jane Doe is also named repeatedly throughout Epstein's malicious d baseless Initial Complaint and she was also alleged to be pursuing claims against that had first witness list, filed June 30, 2010, listed all tims of Jeffrey r trial, which of course included Jane As s, any argument that Jane Doe's deposition is needed "solely" as a result of a rece ruling is also absurd. adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 3 of 8 throughout Epstein's Initial Complaint. Any suggestion that L.M.'s deposition is needed "solely" as a result of the Court's December 5, 2017 ruling is therefore absurd. 5. Rather, Epstein was obviously well-aware vance of the testimony of L.M. and Jane Doe long before the Court's recent rulings re o need, however, to accept la argument to that effect. Rather, the Court nee o I sider the fact that in August 2017 Epstein requested and received dates to take L.M. and ane Doe's depositions in early October 2017 (before the discovery deadline).Epstein, however, voluntarily chose not to set either witness for deposition. 1. Thus, Epst rly fails to meet the first requirement enunciated by the Court, that the depositi needed "solely" as a result of a recent ruling, and the Motion should be denied on ds alone. # stein's Prior Counsel Failed to Set L.M. and Jane Doe's Depositions, Despite Requesting and Receiving Dates for Their Depositions in August 2017. 7. The Motion should further be denied because, although Epstein could have taken these depositions months ago, he voluntarily chose not to so. adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 4 of 8 8. Specifically, on August 2, 2017, Epstein's prior counsel requested deposition dates for L.M. and Jane Doe (the email also sought the depositions of E.W. and . That same day, undersigned counsel's office responded via email and stated that dates were available in early October, and to call to clear specific dates for these depositions. 1. On August 3, 2017, as counsel for L.M., E.W. Jane Doe, stated that he would accept service of subpoenas for his clients' depositions. 1. On August 14, 2017, after some back and fort .1 exchanges, Epstein's prior counsel instructed undersigned counsel's office to hold 1 5, 0 and 10/12 for depositions. 1. On August 16, 2017, confi AStok e would make L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe available on any date. 1. Epstein then set Virgini berts S\\I deposition for 10/5 and E.W's deposition for 10/12. No depositions were set fo 1. On September 7, Epstein unilaterally cancelled the 10/5 deposition of had travelled to New York from Australia solely for purposes of sitting for the depccion. 1. ps i in failed to set L.M. and Jane Doe for deposition on 10/5, despite la notice t FyCould make them available on that date. 1. As such, no depositions were taken on 10/5 1. Epstein also failed to take any depositions on 10/11. 1. Instead, Epstein used only 10/12 to take the deposition of E.W. 1. Thus, when the Court asks Epstein's counsel for the reason why L.M. and Jane Doe's depositions have not been taken, the answer is quite simple: because Epstein chose not to take them. ## C. Epstein's Current Counsel Chose Not to Set Any Depositions Prio tt rhe Close of Discovery. 19. After Epstein's prior counsel failed to use either the 10/ dates to take the depositions of L.M. and Jane Doe, his current counsel made efforts to ess depositions prior to the November 24, 2017 discovery deadline. /frk 01. Specifically, on November 13, 2017, Epstein's counsel requested deposition dates / for a number of attorneys who had represented o X. victims. 01. Notably, however, Epstein_sbuti t counsel failed to request new deposition dates for either L.M. or Jane Doe. 01. On November 20 undersigned counsel's office advised Epstein's counsel that it was available for depositions each day, apart from Thanksgiving, until the discovery cutoff on November 24th. Thus, Epstein could have set depositions on 11/14, 11/15, 11/16, 11/17, 11/18, 11/19, 11/20,11721 11/22, or 11/24. 23 stein failed to set any depositions, whether of the attorney witnesses or of L.M. and Jane 1 1-4/4e, on the dates given. 24. In total, Epstein therefore declined to use twelve (12) days provided by undersigned counsel to schedule the depositions of L.M. and Jane Doe prior to the discovery cutoff. As such, the only reason these witnesses have not been deposed, witnesses whose importance adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 6 of 8 Epstein has been aware of for years, is because Epstein affirmatively chose not to depose them. Epstein's current remorse over that litigation tactic certainly fails to meet the Court's requirements to reopen discovery, particularly on the eve of trial in this eight (8) year old case. ## Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery of denied. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the fo oing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this day of JA-0 2018. JACK: 'O A Flori ar No.: 169440 DA r P. VITALE JR. Flo 's a Bar No.: 115179 (.... AttOrney E-Mail(s): jsx@searcylaw.com and, mmccann@searcylaw.com Primary E-Mail: ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9451 Attorneys for J. [REDACTED] adv. Epstein\ Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG\ Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery\ Page 7 of 8 ### COUNSEL LIST [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esquire\ staff.efile@pathtojustice.com\ 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301\ Phone: (954)-524-2820\ Fax: (954)-524-2822 Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire\ jgoldberger@agwpa.com; smahoney@agwpa.com\ Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.\ 250 Australian Avenue S, Suite 1400\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ Phone: (561)-659-8300\ Fax: (561)-835-8691\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Nichole J. Segal, Esquire\ njs@FLAppellateLaw.com; kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com\ Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.\ 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ Phone: (561)-721-0400\ Attorneys for [REDACTED] J. Edwards Scott J. Link, Esquire\ Eservice@linkrocklaw.com; Scott@linkrocklaw.com; Kara@linkrocklaw.com;\ Angela@linkrocklaw.com; Tanya@linkrocklaw.com; tina@linkrocklaw.com\ Link & Rockenbach, P.A.\ 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard\ Suite 301\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ Phone: (561)-727-3600\ Fax: (561)-727-3601\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc S. Nurik, Esquire\ marc@nuriklaw.com adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Reopen Discovery Page 8 of 8 One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-745-5849 Fax: (954)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Co s IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE\ FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND\ FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,\ [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] individually, and\ L.M., individually, Defendant(s). ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONFIRM EXISTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES\ AND RE PRETRIAL STIPULATION THIS CAUSE having come to be considered upon [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] MOTION TO\ RECONFIRM EXISTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES, and the Court having reviewed the file and\ being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby, ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Than the motion is granted to the\ thene than wholesale additional discovery will not be\ permitted und individual discovery requests may be allowed on a\ DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 27 day of Nov., 2017. ![](<>)\* Matter by matter basis and only if the discovery requests are\ impacted by the court's rulings on motions currently\ Copies have been furnished to all counsel on the attached counsel list.\ pending to be heard on Nov. 29, Dec. 6 & 7, 17. former pretrial stipulation shall be prepared and filed no later than\ Jan December 15, 17. Miladv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CM-10800X X X XMRAC Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pretrial Deadlines ## COUNSEL LIST Jack Scarola, Esquire \_scarolateam@searcylaw.com Phone: (561) 686-6300 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA C O 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Fax: 561-383-9451 Attorneys for J. 4. 41Ic 1. ME Esquire staff.efile®pathtojustice.com 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 "S 94A) Nichole J. Segal, Esquire njs©FLAppellateLaw.com; kbt eLaw.com Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-721-0400 Attorneys for Brad10)0. Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire jgoldberge gA%pa.eom; smahoney@agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Aufttalian Avenue S, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-659-8300 Fax: (561)-835-8691 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Scott J. Link, Esquire Eservice@linkrocklaw.com; Scott@linkrocklaw.com; Kara@linkrocklaw.com; Angela@linIcrocklaw.com; Tanya©Iinkrocklaw.com; tina@ilinkrixklaw.com [REDACTED] adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Order on Motion to Reconfirm Existing Pretrial Deadlines Link & Rockenbach, P.A.\ 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard\ Suite 301\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ Phone: (561)-727-3600\ Fax: (561)-727-3601\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc S. Nurik, Esquire\ marc@nuriklaw.com\ One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301\ Phone: (954)-745-5849\ Fax: (954)-745-3556\ Attorneys for Scott Rothstein NOTA CERTIFIED COPY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE\ FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN\ AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA\ Case No. 502009CA040000XXXX JEFFREY EPSTEIN,\ Plaintiff,\ vs.\ SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,\ [REDACTED], individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN: Monday, November 27th, 2017\ TIME: 9:01 a.m. - 9:27 a.m.\ PLACE 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10C\ West Palm Beach, Florida\ BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were reported by: Sonja D. [REDACTED]\ Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.\ 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ (561) 471-2995 1 MS. ROCKENBACH: Good morning, Your\ 2 Honor. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 Thank you for sending me the legal\ 6 issues that need to be addressed and the\ 7 anticipated amount of time that you are\ 8 going to need. I appreciate that. 9 This motion I have before me is to\ 10 reconfirm and [REDACTED]' opposition to the\ 11 existing pretrial deadlines, which were set\ 12 in contemplation of the case going to trial\ 13 in December. 14 MR. SCAROLA: Almost, sir. 15 THE COURT: Pardon? 16 MR. SCAROLA: Almost. Your Honor has\ 17 it backwards. It is Mr. [REDACTED] who is\ 18 seeking to reconfirm the deadline.\ 19 Mr. Epstein is objecting to that\ 20 reconfirmation. 21 THE COURT: My error. Sorry about\ 22 that. 23 MR. SCAROLA: That's all right. A\ 24 mistake that we all make repeatedly. 25 THE COURT: Mr. [REDACTED] is seeking to 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For Plaintiff: 3 LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A.\ 4 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301\ 5 West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ 6 By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE 7 For \[REDACTED\]: 8 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART &\ 9 SHIPLEY, P.A.\ 10 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard\ 11 West Palm Beach, FL 33409\ 12 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE\ 13 By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 confirm or reconfirm the existing deadlines,\ 2 Mr. Epstein is objecting. Okay. 3 All right. So I guess the place to\ 4 start is from Mr. [REDACTED]' standpoint as the\ 5 punitive plaintiff here. Is there any\ 6 discovery that's necessary from your\ 7 standpoint at this juncture? 8 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. 9 THE COURT: Ms. Rockenbach? 10 MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. If\ 11 you recall, your order that granted the\ 12 motion to continue sets forth in it -- which\ 13 is November 14th -- that both parties don't\ 14 know how the Court will ultimately rule on\ 15 critical issues, which will require counsel\ 16 to try to strategize and plan their\ 17 respective cases under extreme uncertainty\ 18 and duress. And that was a quote from your\ 19 order, which you correctly identified. 20 And as a result, Your Honor opened up\ 21 additional days on your calendar so that we\ 22 could hear those incredibly significant\ 23 dispositive legal motions that are pending. 24 We are going to be before the Court on\ 25 Wednesday, and then next week, on Keeping these deadlines in place, freezing this case in the position that it was in on the eve of trial and ready to be • tried is the only way to prevent those kinds of last-minute delays. 6There has been an avalanche of motions 7that have already been filed, but we have ▪ **plenty of tine now to dispose of those notions. Md if there is areasonable basis 10upon disposition of those motions for Tour Il Honor to** consider On acase-by-case basis -- II and that's the only way it should be done. 13an extension of adeadline or an exception to a deadline -- then Mr. Epstein. through IS his very able counsel, has every means by 16which to present those Issues on a 17case-by-case basis to the Court. But the 16deadlines previously set should be enforced. It Thank you, Your Honor. 20Ma. ROCKEHBACH: Your Honor, I want to 21try this case on March 13th. 22THE COURT: We are going to try the 23case on March 13th. 24MS. ROCKENBACH: There's no question 2\$ that both parties are respecting this Is Md Mr. Scarola ken my ~521f 1n raising the three cla eta t t Kr. Edwards previously represented ettled their cases. That's significant issue that this court will le on Wednesday to determine whethe r testimony is even relevan \:1 I4 If Isee at we're getting a preview about the fabrication issues. But I look forward to Wednesday and discussing It with the court. 16 17 Is IP 20 21 The attorneys that Mr. Scarola identifies as designated for years, they were not. they were fact witnesses and only recently identified as expert witnesses, so appropriate discovery was propounded and their depositions were requested. 22 22 24 25 She new expert that Hr. EMI has listed -- brand-new export -- is being deposed this Friday, which incidentally is past the discovery cut-Off date. I think he Court's order on November 17th set specifically. But as Your Mono identified, these critical i)salea -t to be ruled on by this C 3 6 14 Is Ia 1/ is It 20 21 22 was In Europe and that was the date that was provided. He contradicts Mr. ISM answers to Interrogatories about damages. So this case -- there are no additional notions t0 be filed. Tour Honor has then all, in addition to the responses. What we do need Is to proceed in an orderly fashion and allow these deadlines to be reset in conformance with a standard pretrial order for a March 13th trtel setting. THE COURT: Thank you. 74y intention was not nthe floodgates to allow wholes& ovary, as pointed out, and not really wasn't SO nuch the Court's schedu but respective counsel's vacation sch ua, which took up essential y-e month of time where I wasn't able to s tanything substantively during that pert id to thereafter wait. use there Is tine that opens up end or et least counsel that ted Hr. Epstein In the past -- they 2sally were amenable to setting things time open. Mr. Scarola and his office have getting hearings set if the Court had 1 2 4 always been very accommodating in that regard. So it was not with the anticipation that we are going to open the floodgates for discovery to essentially recommence. Again, it's a 2009 case. I know the counterclaim was filed alittle bit later than that, but it is an old case -- has an appellate history -- that needs to get tried in March. So what I an going to do is this. Because there are issues that need to be addressed -- and I'm hoping I will have orders out as soon as possible after those hearings are \*One -- is that I an going to require notions to be filed on adiscovery issue-by-discovery Issue, deposition by deposition, so as to find out several things. One. is the need to take that deposition and whether that need hat, been either clarified or required by virtue of a court order that will be entered subsequently to the cormencement of Wednesday's hearings and thereafter on those days that I provided. 3 5 If it cannot be demonstrated to the Court that these witnesses need to be taken solely as a result the Court's ruling, then Ulnae requests will be denied, because, again, we were set to try the case next week. le II 12 '3 34 is 14 An0 but for the legal issues that remained and the fact that the Court did not want to put anyone's back against the wall. including itself, in the short period of tine that we had between trial and the hearings that had been sot. and those were lust for aone-day period and not enough time -- it was not contemplated that discovery was going to be open again, at least on the wholesale basis. le lf 20 31 22 23 So 20 some-odd deposition, unless they can be proven and shown to the Court as being required as a result of the rulings of the Court, will not be entertained. They should have been done before. And if not done before, I will need areason for that aa well. 24 25 NS. ROCKENHACH: Thank you, Your Ho And so for clarification, that notion 1 2 2 that Your Honor is referencing filed after Your Honor's rUl November 29th or December S S December Ttht THE COURT: Mean any sdYahs that will be filed after t Court rulings relative to whether or se deponents or the discon occasioned by the Court's ruling? 10 11 IS : Correct. . Correct. We don't know hat >< going to be as of yet. 17 Ie It W3CKENBACIP Thank you. es far as the pretrial -- the joint \*trial stipulation, Your Honor, my point in that was not knowing hobo the Court will rule on critical issues requires -- it causes extreme uncertainty with regard to the issues to be tried. 20 21 fa 2) 24 23 Mr. Scarola -- Hr. filed a unilateral pretrial stipulation. Iam going to ask the Court to allow us to reconvene following the hearings that ant pending before and scheduled before Your Honor so that we can arrive at a joint pretrial 2 1 stipulation. Those issues arm going to be significantly impacted by the Court's legal rulings. 4 MS. ROCKENSACH: I'm sorry. 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS le 17 34 19 20 Joint pretrial stipulation is die - was due. in our response to Mr. unilateral pretrial stipulation. we noted that bend on the fact that Your Honor is going to he making signielcan legal rulings on November 29th, December December Tth, it was I rus t0 frame the issues to ain is case. There are pendi lens that Your Honor is going l on probably on Wednesday. t is that we be allowed ltionat time following those hearings ne arid arrive at a joint stipulation. 21 22 COURT: All I can fay is the of malicious prosecution are well out in Florida law. TIC COURT; I'm sorry. I didn't follow that. 143. ROCKINBACM: Agreed. MCDUFF: And so anticipating 1 2 2 witnesses to testify as to those issues shouldn't be an extraordinary tasks at this point in time. 6 1 a 10 11 11 l) le eS What I was going to say is I recognize that those lists might be tailored in accordance with the Coutt'S rulings, but it shouldn't hold back -- just like pending notions in 'indite that are In every Case, subsequent to -- either filed or filed before or after the pretrial is filed and heard. And It may reduce, inc 44444 or whatever the number of witnesses, but It wouldn't Change the issues that have to be tried as it relates to amalicious prosecution action. is 17 le 20 rI MS. MINIVIHDACH: I would tend CO agree with Your Honor. However, the recent filings by Mr. show that perhaps there ace a mixing or misunderstanding of those legal elements as compared to a defamationCM. 22 23 24 25 SO I think this will be cleared up on Wednesday when Your Honor sees our motion,. hears our arguments, and substantively rules on the pending real issues to be tried. And