L.M., individually, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, J. individually and '00
# IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15' JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Plaintiff,
vs.
S'' X p• r4 (..,3T, tg Komi --s -rt o Cr7 27 I F / -•4 SCP rn - t ring • = a 4; 9X a" f -n :< re %
# RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPP0111NG9 .c. COUNSEL. REQUEST FOR EVIDENT HEARING rn
COMES NOW Fred Haddad, co-counsel for JeffreyEpV• and makes the following Response in Opposition to Motion to Disqualify the undersigned apparently due to his representation of Adler, and as grounds the undersigned would state as follows:
Defendant(s).
- 1. The undersigned opposes disqualification and submits no conflict as asserted by exists.
- 2. states in his Motion \[paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5\]:
2. The lect st matter of the representation [Haddad representing Adler] included matters directly related to circumstances at issue in this proceeding, including specifically the legitimacy of the prosecutions against Mr. Epstein and the extent to which members of the RRA firm other than Rothstein knew of and participated in the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Rothstein.
1. In the course of Mr. Haddad's representation of Mr. Adler, Mr. Haddad was afforded unrestricted access to the files of RRA including the litigation files generated in the course of prosecuting claims against the counter-defendant, Jeffrey Epstein.
1. Included among the Epstein files are materials protected by attorney-client and work product privilege. Those privileges have been consistently asserted in the context of this litigation to protect the interests of RRA's former clients who continue to be represented by Mr. in a currently pending Federal Court action.
1. Mr. Haddad's access to materials to which he is denied access in the context of this litigation creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest which prejudices the counter-plaintiff and compromises the counter-plaintiffs obligations to preserve the confidences of his clients.
1. The undersigned submits each paragraph is factually incorrect and rather disingenuous. To quote from Adler's deposition of April 20, 2011 [which was taken in this matter, and at which Edward's attorney's firm was present] when asked about documents relating to Epstein and [pp 8, 9, however the entire deposition is being filed as Exhibit A to this Motion, and notes Mr. William appearance on behalf of Edwards for Searcy Denny Scarola et al], Mr. Adler replied:
> I don't even have access to those documents any more. They're the property of the bankruptcy Trustee - -
> > XXX
They're the property of the bankruptcy Trustee. I don't even know if I'm still a member fanSTASK process concerning these matters.
But in any e t,flie Trustee has made it very clear that the files that were being handled by the firm are the property of the bankruptcy Trustee unless they have been transferred out to another attorney, and they were not transferred to me. So, no, I do not have the right to see those files or access to those files.
4. Rothstein, Rosenfeld and Adler imploded on Saturday, October 31, 2009 and was closed as a business by, the undersigned believes, the Trustee Herbert Stettin on or around November 2, 2009 (attorney Kendall Coffey immediately set the Trustee action into place on or about October 31 or Sunday, November 1, 2009, see Exhibit B, Trustee's claim against Adler as outlined\]. Undersigned was not yet Adler's attorney and had never heard of or Epstein [Adler was a neighbor and longtime acquaintance of the undersigned]. The files were seized and transferred at or about that time. Adler never had access to the Epstein files after that date of Monday, 2 November, 2009. Stettin was appointed receiver of RRA in RRA v. Rothstein, Broward Case 09And from pages 57 and 58:
059301(07) on November 2, 2009 and he was appointed Chapter II Trustee on November 20, 2009 in Federal Court.
5. Adler's deposition will also be an exhibit at an evidentiary hearing if persists in this Motion and such a hearing is ordered by the Court, but further excerpts from that deposition include \[pp 24, 25\]:
> Q. Earlier in your testimony you mentioned that you couldn't remember the exact style of those suits or the exact amount, the number of suits. Were there additional suits filed against Jeffrey Esptein by your firm after Brad joined the firm, whenever that was?
> A. I don't recall, because I had very little involvement in those cases at all. They were Brad's cases when he joined the firm and they remained Brad's cases after he joined the firm. I was merely the head of the Tort Litigation Division and in an administrative capacity. I don't think I did much of anything in any of those Epstein cases, and that's why I don't remember or I cannot tell you botit4 e details you're asking. is,
> (S\\ Q. Is it fair to say - and I don know if you'll think this is workproduct or not, but I'll ask you and you'll tell me - is it fair to say that the information that you got about the Epstein cases was given to you by other people rather than by first-hand observation of documents? --.-,...--
. A. AntThforrnation j about the Epstein cases would have ( S come h from Brad . Can I swear that I never looked at one piece of paper or looked at one deposition from that case, O o. I might have, but I don't remember specifically looking at any particular document or dr:position.
I never had anything to do with those cases except from an administrative viewpoint and I did attend I think two depositions in that case, but I did not participate in taking them.
Q. Was one of them the brother of Jeffrey Epstein, Mark?
A. Yes, in New York City.
Q. Why did you attend?
A. Because I wanted to go up to New York any way. Brad was there and I just showed up for an hour or something like that. It wasn't very long. \[Note: Adler was purchasing a cooperative apartment in New York at that time that was the subject of the bankruptcy clawback action as well as a Bar proceeding just concluded before Judge Lucy C. MIL
Q. The other one you attended, was that also in New York? 4i,
A. No, that was Jeffrey Epstein. It was his deposition or of his deposition, I should say.
Q. And why did you attend that one?
A. Because it was being taken up on Australitm\*venue in West Palm Beach. I was up there for hearings that morning I believe and, again, I just wanted to stop in and see what was going on. I think there were two other lawyers there, Brand and some else.
6. Further, as to the Ponzi scheme and Epstein settlements, Adler, again with Edward's counsel's law firm present, testified \[pp 62-641:
> Q. Number 5. Between March 1, 2009 to the present date we had asked you this: For any and all documents between or on behalf of any agent of RRA, including you, and any third party, meaning someone who doesn't work at RRA, regarding a purported settlement of any litigation between Mr. Epstein and one of your clients.
> > Did you look to see if you had any such documents?
Settlement? That's settlement with Epstein?
Regarding a purported settlement, not necessarily a settlement.
A. I don't think any of the cases had settled by the time - - by Halloween of 2009.
Q. So the answer is: You don't think there would be - -
- A. In fact, I'm virtually certain none of them had settled. And if none of them had settled, there would be no such e-mails at least involving me.
- Q. Have you heard that Mr. Rothstein told third parties, persons not in your firm, that there were settlements that had occurred or were about to occur with Mr. Epstein at some point?
- A. At some point in time did I hear it or -
- Q. Yes.
- A. I might have read it in the paper at some time in 2010, but. never, ever before Halloween of 2009 or even on Halloween of 2009.
purported settlements? 14/ s) So you don't have any documents thatV describe these
- A. I knew nothing of any purpo&c ements at all before 2010.
- Q. And the way you learned about it was through the press or just rumor or something?
- A. I think what I read in the newspaper.
- Q. You don, 't believe, everything you read in the newspaper, do you? No/
- A. Th s correct, I do not.
Indeed, as the deposition notes on page 81, Adler did not even read deposition in the instant case before his own deposition. Adler was, as head of the Tort Group, asked other questions about the Epstein matter, beginning at page 86:
- Q. Is it accurate to say you don't know what money came in as a result of his efforts through settlement, for example?
- A. I would have kept track of that when we were at the firm, but I don't know as I sit here today.
- Q. That information, to your knowledge, would be in the hands
of the Trustee?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall learning of any settlement of a Brad case? And I'm not talking now about necessarily Mr. Epstein, but any case that Brad brought in that was a significant settlement.
A. First of all, to the best of my recollection, none of the Epstein cases settled while he was at the firm I think I told you.
Q. I think you said that, yes.
A. I think he may have settled one or two others cases not involving Epstein while he was at RRA during ike short time he was there.
Q. Do you know if they were significant tettl ents, you know, upwards of six figures, seven figures?
A. I have no recollection. I just don't know. I don't think - there was no seven-figure settlements. There might have been six figures. Are du talking about the fee or the gross settlement amo
A. I don't th'4hLtlfere were any six - or seven-figure settlements during the short time he worked there on his cases, but I might be wrong.
Fee.
Are you aware of the fact that RRA financed costs for the cases against Jeffrey Epstein during the time Brad was at the firm?
A. I'm aware that the firm advanced costs or, I should say, paid costs on those cases - - on cases that were being handled by the Tort Group, that would include Brad cases in the most general sense.
> Can I tell you if I know for sure, can I swear under oath that the firm advanced costs on the Epstein
cases? I can't tell you that. If I wanted to know how much money RRA advanced or had put into any case, I would have to get that through the Bookkeeping Department because they kept those records, not me. That would typically occur before mediation when I had to know what the cost would be or when a case settled so that we could prepare the Settlement Statement.
When questioned as to who even worked on Epstein's cases, Adler was without knowledge [pages 90-93].
7. Since the deposition is being filed with this Motion, the undersigned will cease setting out further testimony. However, the undersigned would point out that Epstein's now dismissed lawsuit was against, inter alia, Rothstein and adividually; the firm was not sued, hence Adler was not a party.
1. Adler, through the undersigned, a.Cvell imself in depositions and/or hearings, has continually and persistently denied at all times any knowledge of a Ponzi scheme or of having had any involvement therein. Almost three years have elapsed since that time, and no charges have been returned against Mr. Adler for any relationship to a Ponzi scheme or any issues in the instant litigation nor any lawsuit other than a clawback of certain funds and salary bonus.
1. Mr. was employed at RRA some six or seven months, brought the Epstein files with him and had them, apparently, returned by the Trustee after the collapse of the firm.
The undersigned represented Mr. Adler [with other lawyers] on the clawback actions by the Trustee, a copy of which as noted is attached, and served as sole counsel in a Bar matter that just concluded before Judge Lucy C. ME, has been decided and is awaiting the Report of Referee. The Bar litter involved misrepresentations to a cooperative board, and failure to sign settlement statement. There were and are no issues regarding Adler's involvement in the Ponzi scheme or the case. Thus the undersigned would have had no interest whatsoever in Epstein or M, and in fact never heard of either of them except for what was in newspapers after Rothstein's plea and the full scope of his scheme revealed. The undersigned did not recall Adler's deposition in this case until actually reminded by Adler a few months ago and in fact the undersigned left the deposition at the time after the break.
10. The undersigned would therefore advise that Mr. Adler did not even have access to any RRA files regarding Epstein or when the undersigned undertook to represent Adler and thus the undersigned had no ability to view or any interest in viewing the same considering the scope of representation of Mr. Adler. Undersigned was approached in April or May of this year to appear on behalf of Epstein, in what is now the defense of a counterclaim.
01. Mr. Adler, again, had no involvement in the Ponzi scheme or the settlements or cases therein and had no files or other "assertions" in the paragraphs cited above in the Motion to Disqualify. Mr. Adler has no pending litigation with the undersigned as his counsel unless the Bar initiates an appeal of Judge forthcoming decision. The undersigned is co-counsel for trial purposes on two matters with Mr. Adler, an intentional tort case v. before Judge and Richards v. Axelband, a brain injury case in Fort Lauderdale.
01. Adler's deposition makes clear he possessed nothing that supports the claims of in his Motion to Disqualify, the undersigned had no access to any Epstein files other than the files of present counsel in the instant litigation. If the Court has any concerns then of course an evidentiary hearing can be ordered on the issue.
01. The undersigned would submit that EpIM voluntary dismissal of his claims, leaving only counterclaim for trial, also negates any conflict claims as asserted in the Motion.
# MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY
While an evidentiary hearing has not yet been had, the undersigned would set out some authority before such may be ordered. In the recent case of Broin v. a a!, 84 So.3d 1107 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012), a matter in which Morris Companies, Inc. counsel's firm, through attorney Christian D. Searcy, was involved as that Respondent's counsel, the Third District Court of Appeals wrote the following in reversing the disqualification of counsel for Petitioners "\[Hirst we recognize that disqualification of counsel strikes at a significant right, that of a party to choose his or her own lawyer and that often motions for disqualification are filed for tactical purposes. Because it is such a harsh and drastic remedy, it should be resorted to sparingly", citing to Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters at London, 911 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. r d DCA 2005).
Considering what has been set out regarding the allegations of the basis for disqualification just from Adler's deposition, the exhibits attached, and the fact that Adler never was nor will be a party nor represented by the undersigned in any related litigation, disqualification is most inappropriate.
Instructive also is the matter of Nissan Motor Corp. v. Orozco, 595 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4'hDCA 1992), where a Motion to Disqualify that contained the actual affidavits of witnesses, rather than the "ipse dixit" of a party's counsel to support its allegations, was denied by the trial Court and affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. If necessary, after the hearing on October 9, the cases presented will be set out in greater detail.
The present Motion to Disqualify the undersigned contains no affidavits, no citation to applicable Florida Bar Rule, nor any case law and the undersigned submits that is due to the fact that a review of Orozco, as well as Koulisis v. Rivers, 730 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4i° DCA 1999) leads to the conclusion no grounds to disqualify are available under the facts of this case.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the fo listed below, this day of October, 2012. (AVIS famished via Email to all counsel
> \\FRED HADDAD, P.A. One Financial Plaza, Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Tel: [954] 467-6k67 Fax: 954\] X67 By: FRED HADDAD Florida Bar No. 180891 Dee@fredHaddadLaw.com
# COUNSEL LIST
Jack Scarola, Esq.
E-mail: jsx@searcvlaw.com & meo®searcylaw.corn
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Jack Goldberger, Esq.
E-mail: iizoldberger(aaftwoa.com & smahoney®agwpa.com
250 Australian Avenue, South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Marc Nurik, Esq.
E-mail: marc@nuriklaw.com
One East Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
J.IM, Esq.
E-mail: bje.efile@pathtoiustice.com & staff.efile 'ath
425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.
E-mail: tonja@tonjahaddad.com & d
315 S.E. 7th Street, Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
E-mail: Isanchezathelsfirm.coC
Lilly Ann M. , Esq.
1441 Brickell Avenue, 15i° oor
Miami, Florida 33131
0001
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL? CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
2
3
4 5
6
Complex Litigation, Fla.R.Civ.Pro.1201
CASE NO. 50 2009CA04080022XEMB AG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff, J. , individually, 10 Defendants. 16 Taken on 17 DATE TAKEN: TINE: 18 PLACE: S. ADLER Behalf of the Plaintiff Wednesday, April 20, 201 9:10 AM - 3:00 PM !!!linancial Plaza - 21st Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Examination of the witness taken before: 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter, Florida 25 218 SE 3rd Avenue APPEARANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF: One Financial Plaza - 21st Floor
7 vs. 8 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 9 !!!!!!!., in iv unlly,
11
19
# DEPOSITION OF
IIIII Burnett, P.A. 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Lee Lynott, Certified Herit Reporter Registered Professional Reporter Hi-Tech/United Reporting, Inc.
5
6 7
8
BURNETT, P.A. BY: SUSAN APRIL, ESQUIRE 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
APPEARANCE FOR THE DEFENDANT
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART S SHIPLEY 9 BY: WILLIAM, ESQUIRE 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 10 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
11
APPEARANCE FOR THE WITNESS, S. ADLER:
12 FRED HADDAD LAW OFFICES 13 BY: FRED HADDAD, ESQUIRE One Financial Plaza - Suite 2612 14 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Deposition of IIIIIII S. Adler: Direct Examination by Mrs. April Cross Examination by Mr. Certificate of Oath Certificate of Reporter Read and Sign Letter to Witness Errata Sheet (to be forwarded u ution) 151 155 156 157 158
10 11
12 13 14 15 Exhibit. Description Page No. 1 Subpoena For Deposition Duces Tecum No. 6
16 17 No. 18 Description NONE Page No.
0004 '44 " a7. 1 THEREUPON, 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm 3 that the testimony you are about to give will be 4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 5 truth?
6 7 WHEREUPON, 8 9 10 S. ADLER acknowledged havin!II!!!first duly sworn to tell the truth, testified upon his oath as follows:
#### INDEX
\* * \*
### PLAINTIFF'S EXBIBILANDEX
#### DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT INDEX
\* f \*
O4
11 THE WITNESS: I do. 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MRS. APRIL: 14 Q Sir, my name is Susan April. We met just a 15 few minutes ago I guess on the other side of the room 16 here. Thank you for coming today. 17 You know, of course, Mr. Haddad is your 18 lawyer today, right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you know Hill over here? 21 A Just met him. 22 Q Just met him? And you were out in the 23 hallway talking to him for a moment? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Can I ask you what you were talking about? 0005 1 A What we were talking about? 2 Q Yeah. 3 A Just the fact that much of what we 4 anticipate that you're going to ask is protecte 5 the work-product privilege and I told him I would 6 invoke it as I see necessary. 7 Q Alrighty. Let me get down some 8 information. Is your full name 1 ? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Can I get your current addresi? 11 A I'm presently residing at, is South Ocean 12 Lane in Fort Lauderdale. 13 Q Are you currently employed? 14 A Self-employed. 15 Q What is the name of your business? 16 A S. Adler, P.A. 17 Q An w ere is your business address? 18 A 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400. 19 Q How long have you been with that firm as a 20 self-employed attorney? 21 A Since November 2009. 22 O What's your date of birth, sir? 23 A 11/26/61. 24 O Are you taking any medications or anything 25 that would impair your ability to testify truthfully 0006 1 today -- 2 A No. 3 Q -- or impair your memory? 4 Did you see a Notice of Taking Deposition 5 with an attached subpoena for this deposition? 6 A I saw the subpoena. I don't know that I 7 ever saw the notice. 8 Q Did you bring any documents with you today? 9 A No. 10 Q Did you understand the subpoena to request 11 that you bring documents? 12 A Please show it to me. 13 Q I will.
14 A I may have read it. I don't recall what it 15 says as I sit here now. 16 (WHEREUPON, the document was marked as an 17 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 for Identification and 18 attached). 19 A I guess you want me to look at the duces 20 tecum? 21 Q Please. Do you recall seeing that, sir? 22 A Briefly. 23 Q Can you tell me on page -- Well, it's 24 numbered Page 6 because it was numbered I guess as an 4 believe would be responsive to these requests? 25 attachment to a notice, but where it says "requests° . 0007 1 in the middle of Page 6. 2 A I'm looking at it. 3 Q Did you search for any documents that you OS A 5 A I'm reading it. Hold on. 6 Q Well, let's go through it because it will 7 save time I think. 8 A Go ahead. 9 Q The first one: Did you look to see 10 had documents evidencing any and all written 11 communications between you and Edwards 12 regarding any pending and/or contemplating litigation 13 against Jeffrey Epstein from September 2008 to the 14 present? 15 A Let me save you some time and paint with a 16 broad brush. Any communications between myself or 17 Brad - or I see you even have Scott Rothstein 18 listed in another one of these requests - during the 19 time that I was employed by the RRA firm is 20 work-product privilege and I invoke that privilege 21 and I will refuse to answer any questions concerning 22 any such communications. That privilege extends to 23 any of these documents that you're requesting that 24 fits within those parameters. 25 Q Well, let me -- 0008 A As to Number 1, there is absolutely nothing 2 concerning this from, let's say, November or October 3 31st, 2069 through the present. 4 As to anything from 2008 through November 5 of 2009, that would be the time that I was employed 6 by PRA and you are not entitled to those documents 7 if, in fact, they even exist because it's 8 work-product privilege. 9 Q Well, let me ask you this question. You 10 just said if, in fact, they even exist. What I'm 11 asking you is, let's go back to my earlier questions: 12 Did you look to see if you have any documents, 13 whether or not they would be work-product, for that 14 period of time? 15 A I don't even have access to those documents 16 any more. They're the property of the bankruptcy
17 trustee -- 18 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion 19 was had). 20 A First of all, you interrupted me in the 21 middle of my answer to the question. 22 Q I'm sorry. She barged in. 23 A Let me finish. 24 MRS. APRIL: How about you read it back? 25 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was 0009
1 read back by the court reporter). 2 THE WITNESS: They're the property of the 3 bankruptcy Trustee. I don't even know if I'm 4 still a member of any QTASK process concerning 5 these matters.
6 But in any event, the Trustee has made it 7 very clear that the files that were being 8 handled by the firm are the property of the 9 bankruptcy Trustee unless they have been 10 transferred out to another attorney, and t 11 were not transferred to me. So, no, I do no 12 have the right to see those files or acces 13 those files.
14 BY HRS. APRIL:
15 Q So you don't have them you're-0 in 16 A Correct. 17 Therefore, you didn't 1 bour se you know 18 you don't have them?
19 A Correct.
?(\*. 20 Q I think, just to be-clear,-that you said 21 anything from November 1st, 2009 to the present is 22 nothing that exists that's responsive to Number 1?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Number 2, did you look to see if you had 25 any communications, and that would include e-mails,
0010
1 between you and Mr. about compensation or 2 benefits that he expecte or requested from the firm 3 from September 2008 to October 31st, 2000 --
4 A There were no such communications --
5 Q Can I finish my question, sir? I know 6 you've been in depositions, right?
7 A Well, why don't you just ask me if I have 8 anything responsive to Number 2? vou don't have to 9 read it to me on the record. I can read.
10 Q Sir, this will go smoother and faster. I
11 think I'm being courteous to you --
12 A It will go a lot faster --
13 Q If you're not going to let me finish my 14 questions, we're going to be here really long and I 15 have things to do also.
16 A If you insist on reading everything to me
17 that is right in front of me it is going to take
18 really long, but I'm not going to tell you how to
19 take your deposition. So, finish the question.
20 Q Thank you. Have you had a chance to look 21 at Number 2?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you have any documents that are
24 responsive?
25 A No.
0011
1 Q Did you look to see if you have any?
2 A No. But I was not even involved in Brad
3 compensation or benefits when he was hired
4 by RRA, so I know I don't have anything -- I know
5 that there's nothing like that out there. And if
6 there is, I don't have access to it any way.
7 Q Let me ask you about that for a minute.
8 When Brad -- You know Brad, I take
9 it, because you mentioned his name several times?
10 A Yes.
11 Q When did you first meet Brad na C
12 A Probably four or five years ago.
13 Q Where did you meet him?
14 A At the gym. I'm sorry. He appeared/-41 %e
15 did some work on a case when he was with the Rubicki,
16 Draper firm. It was a personal injury case when he
17 worked for Earleen Cote.
18 Q Was that a case that you we lured in?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Were you on the same sid
21 A No.
22 Q He was opposing coun
23 A Defense counsel, yea.
24 Q Do you know what yeatrApa was?
25 A Nope.
0012
1 Q About five years ago?
2 A Approximately.
3 Q And then you mentioned something about --
4 A Wait a minute. Now, that would be probably
5 seven or eight years ago now that I think about it.
6 Sorry.
7 Q And Earleen Coat (pronouncing), is that the 8 name you said?
9 A C-o-t-e.
10 Q She was at the time an attorney at Rubicki,
11 Draper?
12 A Still is.
13 Q How did that case turn out?
14 A I don't even remember what case it was, so
15 I can't tell you how it turned out.
16 Q After that did you have any occasion to
17 communicate with him before he joined RRA? And I'm
18 going to use RRA for your former firm of Rothstein,
19 Rosenfeldt S Adler, if that's okay?
20 A I would see him at the gym from time to
21 time and we would have smalltalk, but that's about
22 it.
23 Q What gym was that? 24 A It was the, I think it was called The 25 Fitness Company and it was located in the 110 Tower
0013
1 across the street from the Broward County 2 courthouse.
3 Q During the time that you would see him at 4 the gym and have emalltalk occasionally, did you ever 5 have any conversations before or after the gym or did 6 you ever meet with him for social activity?
7 A No. Before he joined the firm, no. Or 8 right before he -- until right before he joined the 9 firm, no.
10 Q From the time that you met him when he 11 worked at Kubicki, Draper, other than seeing him at 12 the gym occasionally, you had no communication with 13 him until he joined the firm, is that correct? 14 A Until soon before he joined the firm, 15 correct.
16 Q Can you tell me, as best as you can refill 17 how he was recruited or if he was recruited t 18 the firm?
19 A He was not recruited to join. I 20 tell you what happened, because that's subject to 21 interpretation.
22 I received a large verdict in a sexual 23 abuse case in Palm Beach County and it was in the 24 newspaper. Brad called me and said that, I read 25 about your verdict. And he told me that he had some
0014
1 sexual abuse cases as well. 2 And I told him, I said, Let's have lunch, 3 because I was looking for -- I was always on the 4 look-out for lawyers who I would potentially like to 5 work with and bring into the tort practice group at 6 the law firm. And so, we had lunch.
7 Q And was anyone else at the lunch?
8 A Nope.
9 Q What was the case that you got the large 10 verdict in, if you remember?
11 A It was called Doe or Jane Doe, 12 S-i-r- -w-a-t.
13 How large was the verdict?
14 - \$24 million.
15 Did Christina Kitterman also cork on that 16 cas
17 1T She brought the case in. She did very 18 little on that file, if anything. I did pretty much 19 all the work.
20 Q So you had lunch with Brad . Where 21 did you have lunch?
22 A Yolo.
23 Q Can you tell me what the discussion
24 consisted of?
25 A He told me a little bit about his cases, I
0015
1 told him about my practice group with the law firm 2 and we talked about the possibility of him joining 3 the firm.
4 Q What cases did he tell you he had?
5 A The Jeffrey Epstein cases.
6 Q Do you know how many there were at that 7 time?
8 A I don't recall.
9 Q Were there more than three?
10 A I believe so, but I'm not positive.
11 Q Do you know how any of them were 12 designated, in other words, how they were named in 13 the court files?
14 A We didn't discuss that level of detail.
15 Q What did he tell you the cases -- what did 16 he tell you was the basis of the cases?
17 A He told me that he represented several
18 young girls who were - I'm not sure if he used the 19 word "molested," but that's the word that sticksln 20 my mind - molested by Jeffrey Epstein.
21 Q Did you know who Jeffrey Epstein
22 that time?
23 A Ho.
24 Q Did he explain to you who Je r Stein
25 was?
0016
1 A Briefly.
2 Q How long did you meet, i just a lunch
3 hour?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Did he tell you how far along in discovery
6 he was in those cases?
7 A I don't believe so. I think we just spoke
8 about them generally.
9 Q Did he tell you what he thought they were
10 valued at?
11 A I don't think he did, no.
12 Q Prior to that lunch, when you would see him
13 at the gym, did you ever know that he worked on those
14 kinds of cases?
15 A No. I knew that at some point he had left
16 Kubicki, Draper and he was in practice, but I
17 didn't know really anything else about what kind of
18 cases he was handling.
19 Q From your experience with him or observing
20 his work at Kubicki, Draper, did you think he was a 21 good lawyer?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Or, did you have an opinion about his legal
24 skills?
25 A It was more that I liked the guy and I
0017
1 thought he was really sharp. I didn't have that many
2 dealings with him during that case that I could, you
3 know, in order to measure his skills as a lawyer.
4 5 6 Q Was it your impression during the lunch meeting with Brad that he might be interested in joining with the firm, with your firm?
7 A At the time, yes.
8 9 Q Did he tell you he was interested in doing that?
10 11 A I think he was interested at that point, sure.
12 13 14 Q What did you tell him about the prospects of his being offered an opportunity to join your firm?
15 A I believe I told him I'd --
16 17 18 19 here. I/lt Let me interpose an objection re were any discussions at all MR. : relating to compensation then we're going to invoke the financial and privacy privilege.
20 -, 21 22 23 MRS. APRIL: What is that privilege since cannot find it and I've seen it invoked in Mr. deposition. Do you have some autyoitp or that?
24 25 MR. : It is well-recognized that parties have a right to protect finanoi
0018 1 2 3 privilege unless -- financial informatioK unless it is otherwise deemed relevant. .And we'll take that position --
4 5 6 TEE WITNESS: Well, hold on a second. Let me save you some time, okay? I didn't discuss compensation with him.
7 BY MRS. APRIL:
8 9 0 I don't think I even asked you that question yet which is why I wanted to go back.
10 11 A It could have been part of an answer in fairness.
12 13 14 15 16 17 MRS. APRIL: I think the objection is premature and in the nature of coaching, with all due respect. So, could you read my question back and maybe you could answer it without disclosing anything that you think is improper.
18 19 (WHEREUPON, the last question was read back by the court reporter).
20 21 22 A I told him I was interested in bringing him in and that he should make an appointment to come in and meet with Rothstein.
23 24 Q Is that how you left it when you ended your lunch?
25 A I believe so, yes.
0019 1 2 Q Did you tell Scott Rothstein that you had had a meeting with Brad
3 A I'm sure I did at some point, yeah.
4 Q Did you recommend that Scott consider 5 offering him a position?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What is the next thing you recall about 8 Brad joining the firm, did Brad tell you he made an 9 appointment with Scott?
10 A I don't recall that, but I do recall he 11 joined the firm.
12 0 What month was it or what year and month 13 was it that you had the lunch meeting?
14 A I don't remember.
15 Q Do you know if Brad joined the firm 16 in 2009?
17 A I don't remember.
18 Q Do you know what day Rothstein, Rosenfeldt 19 6 Adler stopped doing business?
20 A Well, we found out that there was a problem 21 on Halloween, October 31st, 2009. The day that the 22 entity formally stopped doing business I'm not clear 23 on, because a Trustee was appointed and then a 24 bankruptcy Trustee was appointed. And I don't know 160.) 25 the exact definition of operations, so I can't tell
0020 1 you any more than that.
2 Q Let's use Halloween as close enough. But 3 as a practical matter, you stopped working there on 4 or about Halloween of 20097
5 A I stayed, I stayed around for a few more 6 weeks because I had to try and wind things up in 7 transition and everything happened very suddenly and 8 it was very shocking to everybody. So, 1 stayed 9 around for a couple of weeks until I made 10 arrangements to go into practice.
11 Q Do you recall testifying at another 12 deposition taken by Charles Lichtman in a case called 13 "In Re: Rothstein, Rosenfeldt a Adler," the 14 bankruptcy case?
15 A Yes. My deposition, yes.
16 Q Do you remember Mr. Lichtman asking you 17 whether you thought that Brad had joined the 18 firm around June f 2009?
19 A I don't ecall that specific question and 20 answer, if you want to show it to me. But if it's in 21 the deposition transcript, I, obviously, was asked 22 about it.
23 Q But you don't actually know when he joined?
24 A I don't recall the specific year that he 25 joined, and I'm being very careful because I'm under 0021
1 oath today.
2 Q Yes, you are.
3 A I really don't know if it was late-'08, 4 early-'09 or what the date was. You probably know 5 about it, though.
6 Q Well, if I told you that I had seen
7 communications between BRA lawyers, including Brad 8 , that are starting in April of 2009, does
9 that refresh your memory at all? 10 A With all due respect, you represent Nr. 11 Epstein and I'm not going to take anything that you 12 tell me as the truth, especially if you're not going 13 to be showing me documents. So, don't ask me to 14 confirm communications that you claim to have without 15 showing them to me. I'm not doing that. 16 Q You don't know? Your best recollection is 17 late-'08 or sometime in the early part of '09, is 18 that what I understood your last -- 19 Sir, can I ask you to not 20 A Yes. 21 Q If you want to take a break or make phone 22 calls or do whatever you're doing on your phone, I'm 23 fine with that, but I would appreciate your giving us 24 your attention. 25 A I'm sorry. I just told someone to stop 0022 1 texting me, to leave me alone. 2 What was your question? 3 Q You are under oath and this is test 4 MRS. APRIL: You want to read back_t 5 last question? 6 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimo 7 read back by the court reporter). 8 THE WITNESS: I don't have a specific 9 recollection as I sit here today. If I gave a 10 more exact answer under oath in my deposition in 11 a Trustee case then that was\` sworn testimony 12 at the time and it is w 13 BY HRS. APRIL: 14 Q You made a comment moment ago that you 15 don't trust me because I represent Mr. Epstein. Can 16 I ask you what that has to do with whether -- Have 17 you ever met me before today? 18 A It has nothing to do with you personally or 19 even Mr. Epstein. You are taking my deposition in 20 litigation that I am not a party to. 21 Q That's right. 22 A I'm not going to take any lawyer's word 23 that they've seen something that they haven't even 24 shown me to use that as the basis for asking me 25 questions. If you want to ask me about specific 0023 1 documents or communications then show me the 2 document, mark it, and I will answer your questions 3 if I know the answer. 4 Q Have you talked to Brad about the 5 fact that he has been sued by Jeffrey Epstein in the 6 case that we're here on today, which is Jeffrey 7 Epstein vs. Scott Rothstein and et 8 al? 9 A Yes, briefly. 10 Q What did he say to you and what did you say 11 to him?
12 A After he was sued, he told me about the 13 lawsuit and that he was being sued. That was about 14 all we talked about at that time. And then I 15 recently spoke with him about my upcoming deposition 16 for the same purpose I just mentioned to his lawyer, 17 because after I was subpoenaed for deposition I 18 called him and told him that / believe that 19 everything that we did at the law firm during the 20 pendency and handling of that case is work-product 21 privilege and I intend to invoke that privilege and 22 refuse to answer any questions encompassed by that 23 privilege unless ordered to do so by the judge. 24 Q You say "that case." What case are you 25 referring to, sir?
0024
1 A What do you mean that case? 2 Q You just made a statement that included a 3 reference, to quote, that case. 4 THE WITNESS: Can you read back my answer, 5 please?
6 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony 7 read back by the court reporter). 8 A To answer your question - and I apolog 9 I was referring to the lawsuits against Jefftey firm after. 10 Epstein that Brad was handling both before he 11 joined the RRA fir
12 Q Earlier in your testimony you mentioned 13 that you couldn't remember the exact style of those 14 suits or the exact amount, the number of suits. Were 15 there additional suits fiiiiiiiainst Jeffrey Epstein 16 by your firm after Brad joined the firm, 17 whenever that was?
18 A I don't recall, because I had very little 19 involvement in those cases at all. They were Brad's 20 cases when he joined the firm and they remained 21 Brad's cases after he joined the firm. I was merely 22 the head of the Tort Litigation Division and in an 23 administrative capacity. I don't think I did much of 24 anything in any of those Epstein cases, and that's 25 why I don't remember or I cannot tell you about the
0025
1 details you're asking.
2 Q Your position is: If you did talk to Brad 3 about cases against Jeffrey Epstein during 4 the time that you both worked at RRA that they're 5 subject, those conversations, to a work-product 6 privilege, right?
7 A Absolutely.
8 Q Have you read the complaint or the amended 9 complaint filed by Jeffrey Epstein against Brad
10
11 A No.
12 Q Have you read Brad ' deposition 13 given in that case?
14 A Are you talking about in this case?
\]j5 Q In this case?
16 A No.
i7 Q Did Brad talk to you at all about 18 questions he was ask! during his deposition in this 19 case?
20 A No.
21 Q You mentioned that ou had these couple of 22 conversations with Mr. concerning this case 23 once when he told you he a een sued by Jeffrey 24 Epstein and then more recently when you said you 25 were -- you told him you were going to be deposed?
0026
1 A Correct.
2 Q What did he say to you in response to your 3 remarks?
A A He just agreed with me that any questions 5 you ask me about any communications, thoughts, 6 discussions or, basically, anything else we did while-1/4 7 at the RRA firm handling those cases is work-product 8 privilege. That was it.
9 Q In your view, was the communication tha
I0 was held between you and Scott Rothstein, Brad 12 !!!!!!IRothstein's office where boxes were in the 11 and several other attorneys at a conference 13 room from the Epstein cases, was that conversation 14 privileged? Do you remember there being such . a 15 conversation, let me ask you that?
16 A I'm thinking. I remember a conference in 17 Rothstein's office soon before -- soon before October 18 31st sometime I think during that month. I do not A9 recall boxes from the Epstein case being present. If 20 they were, I didn't -- I wasn't aware of that at the 21 time. But if it was about that case, then it's 22 absolutely work-product privilege.
23 Q Do you remember testifying about the 24 subject matter of the discussion in your deposition 25 taken by Mr. Lichtman in the bankruptcy case?
0027
1 A I don't, but I'm happy to look at what !2 you're ruing to if you would like to show it to :3 me.
A .7-141M oing to draw your attention to Page :5 131 and 13 of the deposition of Adler taken 6 October 28th, 2010 by Charles Lichtman.
7 Rather than read it to you, because that 1 would make the record long, I'm going to ask you to S start looking at: "Did you have any involvement in 10 any" --
11 MR. KING: Let me look over your shoulder.
12 You don't have an extra copy, do you?
13 MRS. APRIL: Not that's not marked up.
14 A I've read the portions that you asked me to 15 read and, now, I recall a little more detail.
16 Q Do you remember Scott Rothstein calling you 17 and Mr. and Gary and perhaps others
18 into your office --
19 A Into his office?
20 Q -- into hie office to ask you questions?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And you recall testifying - now that you've
23 looked at this - that you wanted to know about
24 whether or not a particular statute applied to a
25 sexual abuse case?
0028
1 A I remember exactly what I said --
2 MR. : Let me interpose an objection.
3 I didn't mean to cut you off. I want you to 4 complete your answer.
5 A I am not sure if at this point because of 6 my testimony in the Trustee case it is still
7 work-product or not work-product. Suffice it to say,
8 I do remember asking (sic) the questions and
9 answering them to the best of my ability in my
10 deposition on the pages that you referenced and I
11 stand by that testimony. Although, as to this case,
12 I am unsure as to whether or not that is work-product 13 privilege.
14 MR. : And we would assert i t 15 extent that you intend to pursue i
16 MRS. APRIL: I'm sorry. I didn'
17 understand your -- )1." 18 MR. We would intend to assert the
19 uct work-pro doctrine to the extent that you 20 intend to pursue it beyondkthitquestion you just
21 asked relating to whetAmet his testimony
22 was his testimony.
23 A And I will point out that that testimony
24 was given in a deposition where I was being sued by
25 the Trustee that stands in the shoes of RRA. And
0029
1 it's my understanding that, by order of Judge Rey,
2 all privileges, work-product, attorney-client are
3 preserved and that's why I am not comfortable
4 testifying openly in this deposition about those
5 dealings and conversations in light of who the
6 parties are in this case.
7 In other words, I still think there is a
8 work-product privilege as to Mr. Epstein. And, if 9 I'm wrong, then the circuit judge in this case can
10 tell me so and order me to tell you more.
11 Q You mentioned that there was an order of
12 Judge Rey in connection with the case where the
13 bankruptcy Trustee sued you and your wife was sued in
14 that case, too, right?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Do you know specifically when that order
17 was entered where Judge Rey said that?
18 A I just have a recollection of knowing that
19 in the main bankruptcy case, of which the adversary
20 case against me was an offshoot, in the main
21 bankruptcy case there was a ruling that the Trustee 22 stood in the shoes of the law firm and that all 23 privileges were preserved, because I guess that's 24 what happens when a Trustee takes over a law firm. 25 Q Who represented you in that case?
0030
1 A In the bankruptcy adversary case? 2 Q Yes. Did Mr. Haddad represent you there as
3 well? 4 A Mr. Haddad represented me in that and I was 5 also represented by a few other lawyers.
6 Q Do you know who they were? 7 A Jason Slatkin, S-1-a-t-k-i-n, represented 8 me for most of the case. Before him, Tom Messana, 9 M-e-s-s-a-n-a, represented me.
10 Well, let me ask you this: Now that you've 11 looked at these couple of pages, irrespective of a. 12 work-product privilege, do you recall that Scott had 13 Epstein files in his office at the meeting you 14 described? %So)
15 A I recalled it at the prior deposition that 16 you have shown me and I now recall it a little better 17 from reading it.
18 Q So there were Epstein boxes in.hte 19 room?
20 A Apparently, in his office. Apparently, 21 there were and that's what I testified to in my prior 22 deposition.
23 Q Today I'm asking you,'do you remember -- 24 How did you know the, were Epstein files? 25 That's a different question. It wasn't asked before.
0031
1 A Frankly, I don't remember how I recalled 2 that they were Epstein files. I mean, do I 3 specifically recall looking at the labels on it or 4 maybe there was writing on the boxes that they were 5 in? I just don' recall those details. I'm sorry. 6 Q When yo talking about boxes, are you 7 referring to stan d sort of banker's box that law 8 firms keep files n?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you know whether there were a large 11 numberikof boxes or a small number?
12 it',''---1 don't remember whether or not I counted 13 the boxes. I probably didn't.
14 Q Do you think there were more than two?
15 A Probably. 16 Q Do you think there could have been as many 17 as 19?
18 A I really don't know. I am not comfortable 19 even giving an approximation under oath concerning 20 the number, the specific number of boxes.
21 Q So you have no idea whether there were --
22 Do you know how they were set up in the room; were 23 they on the table, on the floor, on the credenza?
24 A I just remember seeing boxes on the 25 floor.
0032
1 Q Were they stacked up on the floor or were 2 they spread around so that one could --
3 A I do not have that level of detail in my 4 recollection. I'm sorry.
5 Q Were you surprised that the boxes were in
6 Scott's office?
7 A I was either surprised or perplexed, or 8 both.
9 Q Do you recall if anybody who was in 10 attendance at that time looked at any papers in the 11 boxes, including Scott?
12 A During that meeting?
13 Q Yes.
14 A I don't think anyone -- I don't recall
15 seeing anyone pull anything out of boxes and start 16 looking through files at that meeting. We sat at a 17 table and there was a discussion.
18 Q Now, I'm a little unclear about the
19 position you're taking on work-product or whet
20 it's waived or whether it's preserved, so I'm go g
21 to ask you some questions. And if you think there's
22 some privilege, I'm sure you'll tell me.
23 A Okay.
24 Q Did Scott Rothstein tell you durin that
25 meeting that the questions that he was you had
0033
1 something to do with the Epstein cases?
2 MR. : We'll assert the work-product
3 doctrine to any conversations occurring during
4 the course of that meeting.
5 A But as to whether they pertain to Epstein
6 at all --
7 MR. Because even the failure to
8 associate a particular statement with a
9 conversation could have significance from a
10 work-product standpoint, so we'll assert the
11 work-product doctrine.
12 A And so will I. I'll leave it up to the
13 judge, although you do have my sworn testimony from
14 the other case in front of you.
15 Q Let me ask you this: Without answering the
16 question, because this will make a difference as to
17 whether we need to come back after the judge rules.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you know the answer to that question?
20 In other words, you're not telling it to me, but do
21 you remember if he said that at all or are you
22 allowed to tell me that?
23 A I'm just saying that, as I sit here today,
24 I don't have a clear recollection of that specific
25 matter. I think it might be covered in my answers in
0034
1 the prior deposition from what you showed me. I have 2 not reviewed the entire deposition, for the record. 3 You directed me to two pages of my prior deposition 4 and those are the only two pages that I looked at. 5 And that deposition, I think we said this already, 6 was taken on
7 Q Six months ago almost. October? 8 A Six months ago. October 28th, 2010.
9 Q A week short of six months. 10 Have you ever read the transcript of the 11 deposition that you gave in that case on October 28, 12 2010?
13 A Soon after I got a copy of the transcript, 14 I did.
15 Q Do you recall sitting here today who else 16 was in the room? At that time you said the Tort 18 Steve Jaffe. Do you la whether Steve Jaffe was 17 Group, including Brad, Gary and maybe 19 there?
20 A I have no greater recollection today _ 21 did at the time of my deposition. So if that's w 22 I said in my deposition, that's the best answer I 23 can -- that's better than the answer that I c 24 you today, to tell you the truth.
25 Q On Page 132 of that deposit' 0035 use
1 me. Strike that.
2 Do you recall, did you atty "— . Since 3 October 31st, 2009, have you testified in any other 4 lawsuits, you, as a witness?
5 A No. Other than the adversary case against 6 me, no.
7 Q Have you settled that case?
8 A Yes.
9 Q So let me be clear on this, because I do
10 not know that it would.be fruitful to go through a 11 dozen or more questions that you are going to claim 12 work-product to: It's your position that anything 13 that occurred during the time that SPA existed where 14 you talked to other lawyers in the firm in any way, 15 shape, or form about Jeffrey Epstein is subject to 16 work-product privilege?
17 A Correct. That's my understanding.
18 Q So I'm going to reserve the right to ask 19 you those questions when we have a ruling from the 20 court. We believe there's been a waiver, and you're 21 telling me you don't know or you're not sure there's 22 been a waiver?
23 A As I understand waivers of the work-product 24 doctrine, I am personally of the opinion that there 25 has not been a waiver at all. My prior deposition
0036
1 was compelled testimony that was given by way of a 2 subpoena in a case in which I was a defendant and I 3 had to answer those questions when asked by a
7 8 9 4 bankruptcy Trustee who stood in the shoes of the law 5 firm. I don't think that that constitutes any waiver 6 of the work-product privilege, especially as to the person who was a defendant in those underlying lawsuits and that's the person who you represent in this case.
10 11 12 13 14 15 So that's my understanding, that's my position that I'm taking. If the circuit judge disagrees with me and he enters an order, I will do what I'm ordered to do by the judge. But I say that in an abundance of caution as well and in good faith, of course.
16 17 18 Q You're not saying that the subpoena that was delivered to you by giving it to your lawyer in this case is less of a subpoena, are you?
19 20 21 You said you were compelled in that case because you got a subpoena. Are you treating this subpoena differently? This is a lawsuit.
22 A I know it's a lawsuit.
23 Q We issued a subpoena. Do you feel you wer
24 not subpoenaed to testify truthfully and fully today?
25 0037 A I don't know what you're talking about. I
1 know what a subpoena is. I am here test I 2 oath. der
3 Q Pursuant to the subpoena?
4 A Pursuant to a subpoena. 5 documents that you are requesting. Tf 6 they're in the hands of the bankruptcy 7 talk to him. of have the ey exist, Trustee, so
8 Q Sir, thank you. I know how t 9 who to talk to. o talk to and
10 A Okay.
11 Q My question to you is: You made a 12 statement a moment ago that you testified in a 13 certain way on October 28th, 2010 because you were 14 compelled by virtue of a subpoena in a case where you 15 were a party and the bankruptcy Trustee -- you were 16 required to give testimony.
17 Do you think that the subpoena that was 18 served today is any different? Do you think you're 19 not required to give testimony when asked?
20 A In the sense that I am required to give
21 pursuant to a subpoena, it's the same thing. It's 22 just that the parties are very different in this case 23 than they were in the adversary case against me.
24 Q Sir, you've been practicing how long?
25 A 24-and-a-half years.
0038
1 Q In 24-and-a-half years you have served
2 subpoenas on witnesses and parties?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Is there some distinction on whether or not
5 a person has to testify truthfully and fully
6 depending on whether they're a party and who is suing
7 who?
8 A I have told you my position in this case 9 very clearly as to the reasons behind my assertion of 10 the work-product privilege and my reasons why I don't 11 believe it has been waived. Any further questions 12 from you about my serving subpoenas and what 13 subpoenas mean, quite honestly, is badgering and it's 14 a waste of time. And I would request that you move 15 on and ask me other questions, because this is just 16 absolutely -- there's no purpose behind this 17 questioning other than to
18 Q Let's go back to your conversations with 19 Brad before he joined the firm.
20 A Yes.
21 Q I had asked you questions before. Let's 22 pick up there.
23 You had a lunch with Brad sometime 24 before he joined the firm and you're not sure when 25 that was, but can you tell me this: Following your
0039 1 lunch, do you know if Brad joined the fiat
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you know whether it was a period of a 4 long stretch of time before he joined the firm or was 5 it a month or six months or a year? Can you tell me 6 approximately how long after you had that lunch that 7 he joined the firm?
8 A I don't recall. I'm sorry.
9 Q Was it a year?
10 A I don't recall. I'm sorry.
11 Q You have no recollection?
12 A It was less theta ar.
13 Q All right.
14 A Okay.
15 Q Did you meet with him on any other
16 occasions for any reason to talk about a case, for 17 social reasons or otherwise, between the lunch at 18 Yolo's and his walking into the firm and saying I 19 work here now?
20 A I don't believe so.
21 Q Did he call you, e-mail you, or otherwise 22 communicate with you between the time of that lunch 23 and his becoming employed by RRA?
24 A I don't recall.
25 Tp,, You don't recall. Do you have in your
0040
1 poss sion anywhere e-mails, hand notes written on 2 napkins or otherwise that would refresh your 3 recollection about the answer to that question?
4 A I might have copies of some e-mails. But, 5 if I do, I don't think I have any e-mail attachments 6 and I would certainly have no record of phone calls I 7 don't think.
8 Q When you say you might have some e-mails, 9 is that because you maintained e-mails on a personal
10 computer at home or are these e-mails that belonged 11 to the firm that you retrieved?
12 A I think I took a copy of some e-mails
13 before I physically left RRA.
14 Q Did you review those e-mails prior to
15 coming here today to see if any of them were
16 responsive to my subpoena?
17 A No.
18 Q And that's because you believed they were
19 not or you didn't think of it, or what?
20 A Didn't think of it, to be honest with 21 you.
22 Q Did you give Brad your e-mail
23 address at some point before he joined the firm?
24 A I --
25 Q Did you hand him a business card?
0041
1 A I don't specifically recall doing that, bui)14/ 2 any lawyer can find any other lawyer's e-mail addreski) 3 these days.
4 Q Well, did you send any e-mails to Brad?
5 A Just so we're clear here, the requests in 6 the subpoena in the duces tecum section keep asking 7 about written communications.
8 Q And you think an e-mail is not written?
9 A That is like some esoteric issue that I 10 really don't waste my time thinking about. Written 11 communications to me mean letters, notes, handwritten 12 stuff, printed, typed, things like that.
13 Q If you look at the subpoena on Page 5
14 there's something called "definitions." Number 2, 15 written Communications.
16 Sir, did you read the instructions in 17 definitions before you reviewed the subpoena?
18 A I don't recall.
19 Q If I say to you that the instructions on 20 this subpoena, that you're choosing not to look at, 21 says:
22 "Number 2. Written communications means any 23 documents evidencing communications betreen you and 24 another person or persons of any kind," would that 25 include an e-mail?
0042
1 A Let's put it this way, I will agree to go 2 back and look at the back-up / took to see if I have 3 anything that's responsive and that I do not feel was 4 privileged. And if I come across any such e-mails, I 5 will print those and produce those to you with a copy 6 to Brad's lawyer.
7 Q And, sir, if you determine that they are
8 privileged, will you let us know that they exist so
9 that we can deal with that at such time as the
10 privileged question is ruled upon?
11 A Sure.
12 Q Thank you.
13 I think you've testified, and I know that 14 Mr. has objected, but I think your testimony to 15 a question I had not yet gotten to was that you 16 didn't know, but let me make it clear. Do you know 17 what salary and benefits were offered to Brad 18 when he joined RRA?
19 A No. 20 Q Do you know what salary and/or benefits he 21 received when he did join RRA?
22 A No. Other people handled that part of 23 it.
24 Q What people were those people? Who handled 25 it?
0043
1 A The ultimate hiring decision would have 2 been made by Scott Rothstein, as would the 3 compensation. The benefits part would have been 4 handled by either Debra or someone else who worked 5 the administrative part of the firm.
6 Q Was that Debra
7 A Yes. / IN
8 Q Did Brad tell you prior to meeting 9 Scott Rothstein or, excuse me, prior to joining ARA 10 what he was or had been earning in prior years?
11 A I don't think I discussed that with him.
12 Q Did he give you any kind of a ballpark 13 about what be would need to make it worth his while 14 to move to the firm?
15 A That was not my issue to discuss with him. 16 So, no.
17 Q He didn't offer that information to you?
18 A Gratuitously? Voluntarily? No, I don't 19 think he did.
20 Q But he did contact, you to say he might be 21 interested in joining up with you?
22 A I've already answered that question.
23 HR. HADDAD: Object to the form.
24 MR. Objection.
25 BY MRS. APRIL:
0044
1 Q As part of your preliminary conversation, 2 is it your testimony there was no discussion 3 whatsoever about the range of money he would need to 4 move to the firm?
5 A The only discussion that I might have had 6 with him in that regard was to tell him that I need 7 to get him in to see Rothstein so he could work out 8 the details to see, you know, with respect to numbers 9 and money and all of that, because that was something 10 that Rothstein did. I had no involvement in any of 11 the finances of the firm or salaries or compensation 12 other than, of course, my own.
13 Q When you say you had no involvement, do you 14 mean not only that you didn't determine what salaries 15 or compensation people got but that you didn't know
16 what anyone else got? Is that clear or do you want 17 me to rephrase it? 18 A That's basically true, yeah. It wasn't my 19 concern. 20 Q I think you offered this information in an 21 earlier answer, that you were the head of a 22 department or a group of tort lawyers, am I 23 correct? 24 A Correct. 25 Q What did you call that department? 0045 1 A The Tort Practice Group. I hesitate, 2 because we also did class-action and mass tort. 3 Q All right. 4 A That fell under the umbrella of tort. 5 Q How many lawyers did you have working in 6 that group when the firm ended, broke up? 7 A 9 When the firm ended, I think there were 8 nine of us. And Mr. was one of the nine? 10 A Correct. 11 Q So your testimony is, you didn't know 12 much money any of those lawyers had been th 13 year or any prior time? 14 A Other than myself? 15 Q Of course, other than yourselfot. 16 A That's correct. That was not ,my function 17 in the firm to know that or to deal with that. 18 Q Did you ever make any suggestions or 19 recommendations to Mr. Rothstein about the work of 20 the -- 21 You're the 9th, right? I mean, there was 22 eight, plus you in the group? 23 A Correct. 24 Q -- recommendations about the compensation 25 or bonuses that you thought should be paid to any of 0046 1 those who worked in your group? 2 A I really wasn't privy to that information. 3 That was something that Rothstein handled. 4 Q Does that mean, no, you didn't ever S recommend or suggest a bonus or salary for one of 6 your people? 7 A I think that is correct. 8 Q Do you know if Scott Rothstein or anyone at 9 RRA required Mr. to produce financials or 10 some information about the money he had made in the 11 prior years before joining the firm? 12 A i don't know. 13 Q You don't know? He didn't tell you that 14 was being asked of him? • 15 A He didn't tell me one way or the other and 16 I never asked him about that. 17 Q When he joined the firm, you had been at 18 the firm -- In 2009, how long had you been there?
19 A I started in February 2005. 20 Q When you joined, Scott Rothstein is the one 21 who determined your compensation? 22 A Yes. Well, we talked about it and we made 23 an agreement. 24 Q But he was the one who made the decision 25 from the point of view of the firm as far as you 0047 1 know? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Did he ask you to produce any financials or 4 documentation ae far as what your book of business 5 was? 6 A Yes. But when I came to the firm it was 7 very different, under very different circumstances 8 than when Brad came to the firm. 9 Q How so? 10 A Because I had an up-and-going law firm witeA1/4 11 me and I think it was two other lawyers. I literal 12 closed my office and Rothstein hired my entire staff. 13 And I hesitate, because I'm not sure if every single 14 staff member came over. I think a couple of them 15 might not have come over, but it was, you know, it 16 involved copying machines and it involved all kinds 17 of other issues. And, yes, I did give him financials 18 when I joined for I think two years. 19 Q Did your existing firm merge into the 20 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt 6 Adler firm? 21 A I don't know the definition, the legal 22 definition of the term 'merger," so I am reluctant to 23 say yes or no, we did or did not merge. But suffice 24 it to say, I closed my doors at my law firm and my 25 firm became the Tort Practice Group of RRA. 0048 1 Q When you joined RRA did you, as part of 2 that transaction, sign over your then-existing 3 receivables to the new firm, RRA? 4 A Assign my receivables? Well, all of my 5 cases were contingency fee cases, so there were no 6 receivables, per se. There was certainly -- I think 7 a better way to put it is that the RRA firm 8 substituted in as counsel on all of my pending 9 lawsuits and there were probably a few, there were 10 some lawsuits that were carved out of the deal that 11 remained. The fees from which, if they ever came, 12 were my fees. 13 Q When you joined the firm and you brought 14 cases to RRA that were ongoing cases, did RRA 15 reimburse you or -- 16 Your prior firm, what was it called, the 17 one you brought over? 18 A Karmin, K-a-r-m-i-n, Adler, P.A. I believe 19 was the name of the firm when I closed it and joined 20 RRA in February of 2005. 21 Q I take it you had incurred some
22 out-of-pocket expenses, costs in those cases when you 23 joined RRA?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Did RRA reimburse you or Karmin 6 Adler, 0049
1 P.A. for money that had already been spent on cases 2 that became theirs?
3 A I know that they did when those cases were 4 settled or resolved. I would get a check cut-back 5 for the costs that I had outlaid on those cases 6 before I joined the firm.
7 8 from the very beginning for monies I was If you're asking: Did they write ma checks 9 out-of-pocket for? I don't think the did.
10 In the case of Brad • if you know, 11 were you aware that some of the cases he brought over 12 that there had been costs incurred by him?. Be was a 13 sole practitioner, I think you said, before he joined 14 RRA.
15 A I probably assumed it at the time, but 16 don't think we discussed it.
17 Q You don't know one way or another wh 18 RRA reimbursed him for those costs or how they 19 handled?
20 A No, because that would go back to the terms 21 of his joining the firm which was not my 22 involvement.
23 Q Do you know whether he had - he, being Brad 24 - a written contract with the firm when he 25 oine ?
0050 1 A I don't know.
2 Q Did you when you joined and you brought 3 over your firm, Karmin & Adler, P.A.?
4 A A formal written contract? The answer is: 5 No, we did not. There might have been some e-mails, 6 some checklists, stuff like that. But again, the 7 circumstances under which I closed my firm and moved 8 everything over to RRA was very different than hiring 9 one lawyer who was in practice at the time.
10 Did Mr. ring over cases besides 11 cases against Jeffrey Epstein?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Do you know or is there an inventory 14 someplace that is written that describes the cases 15 that were transferred over?
16 A Yes, there was.
17 Q And -- 18 A But I do not have that or have access to 19 that.
20 Q At the time that the firm was still going 21 and Mr. joined --
22 A Yes.
23 Q -- did you have access to that inventory at 24 that point --
25 A Yes. 0051 1 Q -- so that you could confer with him about 2 cases? . 3 A Well, what would have happened was, he 4 would have provided a case list at some point in time 5 and those cases would have been inputted into our 6 case management system at RRA. So, there would have 7 been a case list that wee retrievable by a lawyer. 8 Q Did those cases not need to go through a 9 conflict process before he joined the firm? 10 A Yes, they did. 11 Q Were you involved with that at all? 12 A No. 13 Q Was it a person who oversaw that at your 14 firm? 15 A What person? 16 Q If there is such a person? 17 A There were people who performed conflict 18 checks. I don't remember specific names of peop 19 who did it, but I know for a fact they were done 20 they were done before an RRA firm file number woul lb/ 21 be assigned to the file. In other words, you would 22 not get a firm file number until the conflict 23 checking process was done. 24 Q Were those people administrative people or 25 attorneys that did this process? 0052 1 A That did the conflict checks? 2 Administrative people or secretarial. 3 Q Do you know who they reported to or at 4 least at the highest level who was the highest level 5 administrative person in the firm? 6 A Debra . 7 Q Have you ever discussed the case that TM 8 you're here on today, Epstein versus Rothstein, with I 9 Debra ? '.., 10 A No. I have not seen or spoken with her 11 since before October 31st 2009. 12 Q So, Brad joins the firm. You're 13 not sure exactly when t at was, but he came alone, 14 right? Be didn't bring any other lawyers? 15 A Correct. 16 0 Did he sit anywhere in proximity to your 17 office; same floor? 18 A I'm trying to think where his office was. 19 At one point he was on the same floor. And then 20 after that, he got moved I believe up to another 21 floor or down to another floor. 22 Q Was that, was there a reason for that that 23 you're aware of? 24 A Yes. 25 Q What was it? 0053 1 A After Brad joined the firm some additional
2 space got built out, new space for us, and I think it 3 was on the 15th Floor. Brad was moved down there 4 when that space was completed.
5 Q Were other members of your group of nine 6 moved to that floor?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And you weren't?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Because you didn't want to move?
11 A I liked my office.
12 i Fair enough. I understand the firm
13 utilized a system that's been referred to as QTASK?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Can you tell me what QTASK is?
16 A QTASK is a web-based project management and 17 collaboration tool.
18 Q Did you have anything to do with the 19 development or marketing of that tool?
C
P S
20 A Yes.
21 Q Can you tell me when that started?
22 A Approximately 2007.
23 Q Does somebody own proprietary rights in
24 QTASK?
25 A What do you mean by proprietar iS.ghts?
0054
1 Q Copyright, patent?
2 A I don't know the details .
3 Q Do you own any part o'Ar
4 A No.
5 Q Have you ever?
6 A No.
7 Q To your knowledge, did RRA own the rights 8 to use or market QTASK?
9 A Did we own the rights to use or market?
10 Scott Rothstein was an investor in QTASK personally.
11 Our firm was allowed to use QTASK. As far as 12 marketing QTASK, I was more of an evangelist than a 13 salesperson. I would tell people about it and I 14 would show it to them. And I also participated in 15 the design and specifications of particular features 16 and user interfaces in QTASK.
17 Q Is QTASK a tool that would allow the office 18 to have gone paperless? That term has been used 19 sometimes when talking about firms. Is it in lieu of 20 paper that you would use QTASK?
21 A QTASK is or can be used to store and manage 22 scanned images.
23 Q Did your tort group use it for that
24 purpose?
25 A For the most part, no. There was other
0055
1 software that was used to manage the scanned images
2 at RRA. That's not to say that some documents were
3 not stored in QTASK for one purpose or another or for
4 one case or another, but the firm officially used a
5 different software product to manage its scanned 6 images. 7 0 What product was that? 8 A That was called Fortis, F-o-r-t-i-s. 9 Q when joined the firm were 10 his case files rought over to RRA's offices? Paper 11 files, I mean. 12 A Were they physically brought over to RRA's 13 offices? I don't think I knew that at the time, 14 because the idea was if he was not paperless that all 15 of his files be imaged and brought into our image 16 management system at the firm, because we were a 17 paperless law firm. But did he physically bring over 18 all of his files? I don't know the answer to that 19 question. 20 Q So when you say "we were a paperless law 21 firm,' using Fortis, for example, as you said -- 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- you'd have images of documents in lieu 24 of paper copies? 25 A All files were supposed to be imaged or 0056 1 scanned, but there were exceptions to that. In er 2 words, some lawyers still used paper files over there 3 for various reasons and I cannot swear under oath 4 that every single file was, in fact, scanned or 5 imaged. 6 Q Do you know whether Mr. Edwards' files were 7 scanned or imaged when or about, the time he joined 8 the firm? 9 A I'm sure some of re, but I cannot 10 tell you if all of them assts. You would have to ask 11 him. 12 Q Now, you referre8-.\_earlier to the Epstein 13 cases. Those cases, did you ever actually have an 14 occasion to look at the cases; in other words, 15 whatever file he bad whether it was scanned or in 16 paper? 17 A Are you asking me if I ever sat and looked 18 through any of the Epstein files whether in paper or 19 digital form? 20 Si Yeah. 21 A I don't think I did, no. 22 Q What about PACER, did you ever use the 23 public access system that provides access to Federal 24 court filings to look at any of them? 25 A No. 0057 1 Q Do you use PACER now to look at any.court 2 filings? 3 A I don't practice in Federal court, so the 4 answer is no. I don't even know how to use PACER. 5 Q Is it fair to say - and I don't know if 6 you'll think this is work-product or not, but I'll 7 ask you and you'll tell me - is it fair to say that
8 the information that you got about the Epstein cases 9 was given to you by other people rather than by 10 first-hand observation of documents? 11 A Any information I got about the Epstein 12 cases would have come from Brad . Can I swear 13 that I never looked at one piece of paper or looked 14 at one deposition from that case, no. I might have, 15 but I don't remember specifically looking at any 16 particular document or deposition. 17 I never had anything to do with those cases 18 except from an administrative viewpoint and I did 19 attend I think two depositions in that case, but.I 20 did not participate in taking them. 21 Q Was one of them the brother of Jeffrey 22 Epstein, Nark? 23 A Yes, in New York City. 24 Q Why did you attend? 25 A Because I wanted to go up to New York any 0058 1 way. Brad was there and I just showed up for a. o 2 or something like that. It wasn't very long. 3 Q The other one you attended, was that 4 in New York? 5 A No, that was Jeffrey Epstein. It as'his 6 deposition or a part of his depositio h ld 7 say. 8 Q And why did you attend that 9 A Because it was being takenap n Australian 10 Avenue in West Palm Beach. I was up there for 11 hearings that morning I believe and, again, I just 12 wanted to stop in and see what was going on. I think 13 there were two other lawyers there, Brad and someone 14 else. 15 Q Something I forgot to ask you before. When 16 you were talking about the lawyers that were in your 17 group when RRA ended you said there were nine. Was 18 Christina Kitterman in your group? 19 A No. 20 Q Had she been in your group before? 21 A No. In the Tort Group? 22 Q In the Tort Group? 23 A NO. 24 Q What kind of lawyer, what kind of practice 25 did shit have? 0059 1 A Commercial litigation. 2 Q Was she at the firm at the end? 3 A Yeah. 4 Q The case I think you've mentioned before, 5 that was the \$24 million verdict? 6 A Yes. Thank you for mentioning that 7 again. 8 Q That originated through her? 9 A She brought it in. She knew the mother of 10 the girl who was molested.
11 Q Do you know where she's working now, Mrs. 12 Ritterman, if she's working? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Where is that? 15 A She's in private practice. 16 Q Her own? 17 A Yes. 18 Q I mean, I'm in private practice, too, but I 19 work at, Burnett. 20 A I know. 21 Q But she's on her own? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know if she received any 24 compensation for being the person who brought in that 25 piece of litigation? 0060 1 A What, the \$24 million verdict? 2 Q Yes. 3 A She probably received nothing, because we 4 didn't collect any money on it. We didn't coll 5 the verdict. The guy filed bankruptcy. 6 Q Now, I want to go back to the regues 7 the subpoena because I'm not entirely clear now 8 whether or not you don't have any responsive 9 documents to the seven categories or whether some of 10 them might be contained in the e-mails that you had 11 forgotten to look at. 12 Did you previous, prior to today look to 13 see whether you had any written communications, I'm 14 going to include e-mails in that, between you and Mr. 15 Rothstein about Mr. 16 A .I think the only documents I would have, as 17 you define "documents", would be e-mails. And, no, I 18 did not look, but I will. 19 Q I think I've already asked you this, but 20 just so it will be clear. Number 4, I had asked 21 about written communications to or from Mr. 22 prior to his becoming an employee of RRA. Rn you 23 said those may be in the e-mails or not? 24 A It I have them, I will either produce them 25 or I will describe them and invoke privilege if I 0061 1 feel it's applicable. 2 Q Now, if it's a communication to or from Mr. 3 Edwards prior to his becoming an employee of RRA, 4 what privilege would you be invoking? 5 A I don't think there is a privilege for that 6 particular category. Well, none that I can think of 7 unless privacy -- 8 MR. : From your standpoint, financial 9 privacy might be -- 10 MRS. APRIL: Are you taking the position 11 that if I am looking for a job with a firm and I 12 send an e-mail to this fellow saying, Hey, I 13 gotta have six figures, big six figures, that
14 would be somehow a privileged communication? 15 MR. : In a certain type of case the 16 privilege may be overridden by other interests, 17 but in this particular case we continue to 18 assert the privilege for the reasons that Mr. 19 Scarola set forth in the earlier deposition. 20 There's absolutely nothing that would 21 outweigh -- there is nothing of interest in this 22 case from the defendant's perspective, from our 23 standpoint that would outweigh the interests of 24 our client with regard to financial privacy.
25 MRS. APRIL: We have a non-party witness
0062 1 here today, so I don't want to waste his time 2 with this silliness.
3 MR. : You just asked me what our 4 position was and I recounted it.
5 MRS. APRIL: I know, but I just wanted to 6 understand that you're saying your guy had so 7 kind of expectation of privacy if he 8 communicated with another person who he didn 9 even work with and that it would privileged?
10 MR. : No. Our position is yha 11 set forth.
12 MRS. APRIL: Okay. You don't-h e 13 repeat it. It speaks for itself, I see.
14 BY MRS. APRIL:
15 Q Number 5. Between March 1, 2009 to the 16 present date we had asked you this: For any and all 17 documents between or on behalf of any agent of RRA, 18 including you, and any third party, meaning someone 19 who doesn't work at BRA, regarding a purported 20 settlement of any litigation between Hr. Epstein and 21 one of your clients.
22 Did you look to see if you had any such 23 documents?
24 A Settlement? That's settlement with
25 Epstein?
0063
1 Q Regarding a purported settlement, not 2 necessarily a settlement. 3 A I don't think any of the cases had settled 4 by the time -- by Halloween of 2009.
5 Q So the answer is: You don't think there
6 would be -- 7 A In fact, I'm virtually certain none of them 8 had settled. And if none of them had settled, there 9 would be no ouch e-mails at least involving me. 10 Q Have you heard that Mr. Rothstein told 11 third parties, persons not in your firm, that there 12 were settlements that had occurred or were about to 13 occur with Mr. Epstein at some point?
14 A At some point in time did I hear it or --
15 Q Yes.
16 A I might have read it in the paper at some
17 time in 2010, but never, ever before Halloween of 18 2009 or even on Halloween of 2009. 19 Q So you don't have any documents that would 20 describe these purported settlements? 21 A I knew nothing of any purported settlements 22 at all before 2010. 23 Q And the way you learned about it was 24 through the press or just rumor or something? 25 A I think what I read in the newspaper. 0064 1 Q You don't believe everything you read in 2 the newspaper, do you? 3 A That's correct, I do not. 4 Q Did you look to see if you had any S documents, this is also part of Number 5, concerning 6 the financing of any litigation by an RRA client 7 against Mr. Epstein? 8 In other words -- Well, I don't know. Do 9 you have any such documents that concerns the 10 financing of those litigation matters? 11 A The only information I really have ou 12 that is what I spoke about in my prior deposition 13 the Trustee case. 14.) 15 that? And you don't have any documen' 16 A I don't think I've ever seen any documents 17 about that. 18 Q If you don't mind looking at Number 5 just 19 for a minute, because there are Subparts a, b, c, d 20 and e. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Just to be clear then. You don't think you 23 have any documents concerning,- let's go to "b," I 24 think you've answered "a" already - soliciting or 25 receiving money in return for settlement funds 0065 1 allegedly paid or to be paid by Epstein? 2 Not necessarily a document you created, but 3 that came into your possession from Mr. Rothstein or 4 anyone else? 5 A Absolutely. Well, before 2010 I didn't. 6 know of any settlement or settlement funds or 7 anything having to do with that issue involving the 8 Epstein cases -- 9 Q All right. Had you -- 10 A -- except as specifically described in 11 answers to questions in my prior deposition when the 12 questions were asked of me by Mr. Lichtman and I 13 answered them. Those questions and answers touch on 14 some of the issues you're asking me about today. 15 Q In that deposition, do you recall 16 testifying that you did not know prior to the breakup 17 of the firm that Scott Rothstein was marketing 18 structured settlements to investors? 19 A I had no idea. I did not know at all.
20 Q Did you know or hear -- Let me break it 21 into two questions.
22 Did you know that Scott Rothstein was 23 marketing investments of any kind to anybody during 24 the time that you worked at RRA?
25 A I never knew anything about that when I 0066
1 worked at RRA.
2 Q Did you hear even as rumor that he was 3 selling some kind of investments?
4 A While I worked at RRA?
5 Q Yes.
6 A Absolutely not.
7 Q I assume your answer is going to be no, but
8 let me just ask you to look at Number 6 so that I'm 9 clear on the e-mails that you're going to go back and 10 look at don't cover this.
11 Number 6, we asked you if you had any
12 documents which purport to evidence any transfer of
13 funds or property from Epstein to RRA, hr. Rothatein
14 or any other Rothstein-related entity for the
15 settlement of any case against Epstein, real."o
16 fabricated?
17 A Same answer. During the time I was at RRA,
18 the Epstein cases were all pending. Nothing had been
19 settled. There were no monies or funds or transfers 20 that I knew of.
21 Q That's why the word "purport" is in there.
22 A Whatever, but I'm just Ming you.
23 Q Number 7 I believe a' swered?
24 A I have.
25 Q You do not hav ups of any
0067 77 1 employment agreements or %Intl; between Hr.
2 and RRA that describes compensation?
3 A Nope.
4 Q So whether or not it's privileged, you
5 don't have it, if it exists?
6 A I don't have it, if it exists.
7 Q Sir, you said you've been a lawyer for 24
8 years. Where did you go to law school?
9 A Nova.
10 Q And currently in your -- Is it S.
11 Adler, P.A.?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Do you have other lawyers who work with you
14 as employees or partners?
15 A I have no employees or partners.
16 Q Prior to RRA I think you have said the firm
17 that you were with was Rartan (pronouncing)?
18 A Karmin.
19 Q Karmin a --
20 A It was Rarmin 4 Adler, P.A., I believe.
21 0 Do you recall going through your prior
22 employment when asked by Hr. Lichtman about what
23 positions you had held as a lawyer before joining 24 RRA?
25 A I don't specifically recall, but if he 0068
1 asked me, I would have told him.
2 Q So you graduated in 19 -- What year is 24
3 years ago?
4 A What, what year did I graduated from law
5 school?
6 Q Yes.
7 A 1986.
Ak AaC
8 Q Can you just take me through your
9 employment, a summary of what you did first? I know
10 when you got to Karmin 6 Adler, but between law
11 school and that firm. 12 A So you would like to know my employment
13 history from 1986 forward, is that your question?
14 Q Yes.
15 A In 1986 I was employed by Sheldon J.
16 Schlessinger, P.A.
17 Q Okay.
18 A In early-1987 or in late-1986 I lefti )
19 employment and I went into practice for se al
20 years. And then I joined the law firm of Roderian,
21 Spadara 6 Karmin in 1988. I'm sorry. In 1988 I
22 joined that firm Roderman, Spadaro 6 &Armin. Two
23 years later in 1990, Karmin and I e itl ff and 24 formed Karmin Adler.
25 Q And that brings us u lob you --
0069
1 A Basically, right. you know, we
2 brought some people on; some wyera came, some
3 lawyers went. Carl went out on disability and I
4 bought him out in, I think, 2003 or 2002, but we kept
5 the firm name and I stayed there until I joined RRA
6 in February of 2005.
7 Q I believe you testified already that you've
8 settled the case that you gave testimony, I mean, the 9 adversary proceeding that the bankruptcy Trustee
10 filed against you?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you're not a party in any other
13 lawsuits at present?
14 A At present, no.
15 0 Have you ever been a party in a lawsuit
16 other than that one?
17 A Yes.
18 Q When?
19 A In my whole life?
20 Q Yes.
21 A I was named in two other lawsuits arising
22 out of the RRA situation.
23 Q Are those suits pending?
24 A No. I settled one of them. The other I
25 believe I was dismissed from.
0070
1 Q And excluding --
2 A And have had other litigation other than
3 that.
4 Q Well, excluding like professional
5 negligence or anything relating to RRA, have you been 6 a party in any other lawsuit?
7 A Just maybe by a credit card company or I
8 think West Publishing sued me once, I didn't pay my
9 Westlaw bill. I think that's about it subject to
10 those parameters and subject to everything else I
11 disclosed to you.
12 Q What about a plaintiff, have you ever been
13 a plaintiff in a lawsuit?
14 A I think I sued someone in small claims
15 court in college that I think ran into my car, but I
16 think that's it.
17 Q Have you been deposed before last year wh
18 you gave a deposition in the adversary proceeding
19 that Chuck Lichtman took your deposition?
20 A Have I ever been deposed in my life
21 then?
Ck 2. 24 Were you deposed as a -- o them
22 Well, since you were a lawyer?
23 A Yes.
25 concerning your legal practice?
0071
1 A There were two, I think there were two
2 malpractice suits against me. I might have been
3 deposed in one of them, but I'm not positive. And I
4 think I've been deposed a few times as like an
5 attorney's fees expert.
6 Q That's what I was going to ask you, as an
7 expert?
8 A Yeah. And I think that's it. There's
9 something else that there might have been another
10 time I testified, I just don't remember the details
11 of that.
12 Q You mentioned earlier that when you -- soon
13 after you gave the deposition October 28th, 2010 that
14 you did see the transcript and you looked at it?
15 A I read it over. I might not have read it
16 word for word, but I looked through it.
17 Q Well, typically, court reporters will give
18 you an Errata Sheet and ask the witness if they want
19 to make any corrections?
20 A I don't think I did. I might have said I
21 will read, but I don't think I made any corrections
22 to the Errata Sheet.
23 Q To your knowledge, were there any
24 inaccuracies in your statement?
25 A Not to my knowledge. But again, I did not
0072
1 read it word for word. In other words, I ended up
2 effectively waiving my right to read and make
3 corrections on the Errata Sheet by not returning 4 it.
5 Q Other than your own counsel and your 6 conversation with Brad Mil, did you speak to 7 anyone else about the fact t at you were being 8 deposed in this case?
9 A I might have told my wife. I'm not sure. 10 Q I understand. And again, I'm doing this to 11 save time. We can go through it more slowly, but 12 based on your prior testimony in answers to questions 13 by Mr. Lichtman, you were never actually an owner of 14 any equity in RRA, is that correct? You were 15 promised to be, but you never actually received any 16 correct?
17 A Correct. 18 Q And that you had a title of vice-president, 19 but that was more of a title rather than a meaningfu 20 functional title?
21 A It was just that, it was a title. I neve 22 acted as vice-president in any capacity. It was 23 title I was given.
24 Q Did you have the authority to hir 25 at all? 0073 A(444
2 1 A Q Hope. Even your secretary or so rice). 3 person?
4 A If I wanted to get rid of a secretary, I 5 could go to Debra and tell her, Please get rid of 6 them. And she would. So I guess I had the indirect 7 authority to do that.
8 Q You were head of your Tort Group. Was the 9 firm divided into other departments similar?
10 A Whether there other practice areas within 11 the firm, yes.
12 Q Do you know how many there were? 13 A Probably five or six. 14 Q Was there any discussion between you and
15 other lawyers at the firm, including Scott Rothstein, 16 about, well, vetting Mr. before he joined the 17 firm where you sat around the table and talked about 18 whether it would be a good idea to bring him on or 19 you didn't sit around the table but you talked?
20 A Other than telling Scott Rothstein that I 21 had met with Brad and I wanted to bring him into the 22 firm, no.
23 Q What about references or background checks 24 on Mr. , did you personally or did you ask
25 someone else to do that? 0074
1 A I didn't perform any. Whether the firm did 2 or not, I really don't know.
3 Q Do you know whether the firm typically 4 would do any kind of checks on lawyers before 5 bringing them on?
6 A What specifically do you mean by checks on 7 lawyers?
8 Q Calling the Florida Bar to make sure 9 they're in good standing, checking to see that they 10 really went to law school, whether they have any 11 convictions, things like that?
12 A I don't know one way or the other.
13 Q You didn't do it and you don't know?
14 A I did not do it for the most part, no. I 15 only hired lawyers that I knew.
16 Q In your testimony that you gave on October 17 28, 2010 you attribute, indirectly I think, Mr.
19 R.:ging in the case that was your \$24 million 20 verdict. Do you remember that?
18 coming to the firm with Christina Ritterman
21 MR. : Objection to form.
22 BY MRS. APRIL:
23 Q Let me ask you this, because it's not mea e 4/1
24 to impeach you, it's just toliiiiii a point. You
25 mentioned earlier that Brad saw some pre s
0075
1 about the case, the \$24 million case?
2 A That Christina Ritterman had trough
3 Q Yes.
4 A And Brad called me once he saw tha
5 Q So the connection there is strictly because
6 Christina brought in the case, you worked on the
7 case, the case got publicity, Brad called you about
8 it; that's the only connection between Christina
9 Kitterman and Brad
10 A Christina Kitterman had nothing at all to
11 do with it other than the fact that she brought that
12 Doe vs. Siriwat case into our law firm.
13 Q Was Stuart Rosenteldt part of your practice 14 area group?
15 A No.
16 Q Was he the head of a different group?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What was that group called?
19 A Labor andliiiiiiment.
20 Did Brad bring over to your
21 knowledge any Labor an Employment cases?
22 A I don't know.
23 Q If he did, he was in your group? He wasn't
24 like -- Could a person be in more than one group
25 depending on the kinds of cases they had?
0076
1 A I think that some groups were more
2 well-defined than others within that firm and some.
3 groups were run differently than others from an
4 administrative viewpoint. I think some groups
5 weren't even run at all, they were just lawyers who
6 practiced in the same area and who just worked
7 together.
8 Q But when Brad joined the firm I think you
(Th 2 Specifically, harassment cases by an employee a loo) 3 an employer?
9 mentioned earlier that there was what I call an 10 inventory or a case list of what he brought over. 11 Did you personally look at the cases so you would 12 have an understanding of the nature of the book of 13 business he brought over?
14 Let me rephrase that. I don't mean 15 personally looked at the case files.
16 A Right.
17 Q But look at the style of the case and have 18 some conversation so you know what they were about?
19 A Once they got on our case list, I might 20 have sat with him and said, What's this case? What's 21 that about? What's this case? What's that about?
22 Q Were you aware whether any of them were
23 sexual harassment cases against an employer?
24 A Are you asking whether I am aware that any • 25 of them were Labor S Employment cases?
0077
1 Q Well, no. Somebody might call it that.
4 A I really would not know about tha
5 say I wouldn't have access to that, but I 6 concerned with the tort cases that I was4 7 administratively overseeing.
8 Q Are you saying that if he did have a case 9 or cases of that type that, administratively, they 10 would be overseen by Stuart Rosenfeldt or someone 11 else?
12 A If Brad, hypothetically, brought a Labor e
13 Employment case into the firm, he would deal with 14 Stuart Rosenfeldt about that. If he told me he had 15 one, I would say, Go and talk to Stuart. Lawyers
16 were encouraged to bring in other kinds of cases that
17 other lawyers in the firm handled, but I didn't
18 really keep track of what cases Brad brought into the 19 firm that were not regarding personal injury or 20 tort.
21 Q When Brad came into the firm -- Well, let 22 me back up.
23 At Rothstein, Rosenfeldt E. Adler, were 24 lawyers referred to as partners or shareholders and 25 associates?
0078
1 A People were given titles like that.
2 Q And when Brad came in was he considered in 3 the associate group or in the partner/shareholder, if 4 you know?
5 MR. : objection. Form.
6 A He would have been either an associate or a
7 partner. I don't recall what type of title he was 8 given when he came in. I don't recall.
9 Q Is that something that he talked to.you
10 about when you met with him about whether or not it
11 was important what his title was?
12 A I don't recall.
13 Q Do you know how in the firm it was 14 determined whether somebody was given the associate 15 title versus partner or shareholder?
16 A I did not know the specific criteria, but 17 that was ultimately up to Scott Rothstein.
18 Q Were there any attorneys at the firm who 19 were in a different category such as of counsel or 20 senior counsel or some other title?
21 A Was anyone of counsel? I'm not sure. I 22 just don't know.
23 Q When you met with Brad at Yolo 24 during your meeting when you talked to him about his 25 possibly joining RRA, did he describe to you his
0079 1 success rate, you know, his wins or losses or how he 2 had done in cases?
3 A We may have, but I do not specifically 4 recall.
5 Q Who besides Scott Rothstein in the fi 6 know now I think it's the Trustee, but at the 7 the firm was still operating, besides Scott 8 Rothstein - who else would have known the 9 compensation package that was ultimately lig pon 10 with Brad
11 A I don't know for sure, but probebW whoever 12 was involved in payroll and benefits and things like 13 that. I don't really know who had access to what on 14 that administrative side of the firm.
15 Q But some administrative person, you just 16 don't know who, or persons?
17 A I am not even sure under oath, you know.
18 Probably Irene Stay (phonetic), who was the 19 bookkeeper, probably had salary information I would 20 imagine, but there were several different people over 21 time who worked in that administrative part of the 22 office with Scoter and Debra and all of those people. 23 They handled the !."
24 Q Did you ever participate in any assessment, 25 review of the wor of attorneys who worked with you, 0080
1 with Mr. Ibths ein? In other words, where you 2 discussed with him how they were doing for purposes 3 of their year-end compensation or whether they would 4 have adjustments? Did you have any of those sort of 5 discussions with him?
6 A The only kind of discussions I recall, he 7 might have said, How is this person doing? Or, How 8 is that person doing? At one point I might have been 9 named to a Compensation Committee, but I don't think 10 that any Compensation Committee that I was ever 11 involved in ever even met. It was like something 12 that was said or discussed that Scott brought up, but 13 I never sat down and made compensation decisions or 14 reviewed the work for compensation purposes.
15 I oversaw the case list and the 16 distribution of cases among different attorneys and 17 staff members to make sure the cases were balanced. 18 Q Did you even, well, even fill out a written 19 evaluation of the lawyers that worked with you? 20 A No. Not a formal written evaluation. 21 Q What about an informal written evaluation 22 or an e-mail even? 23 A Did I ever send an e-mail to one of the 24 lawyers in my group about something on one of their 25 cases? I'm sure I did. 0081 1 Q No. No. I mean, to Hr. Rothstein or the 2 Compensation Committee? You said they never met, but 3 was there ever any collection of information when you 4 were there about how the eight other lawyers in your 5 group stacked up, how they were doing? 6 A There may have been some e-mails like tha 7 I don't specifically recall. 8 Q Do ou remember if there were any ever don 9 on Brad ? 10 A I don't recall. He wasn't there f 11 long, you know. 12 Q Yes. 13 A He was probably there about a\_ r five or 14 take. That's why I was kind of 15 he started in '08 or '09. 16 Q You said you didn't read his deposition 17 given in this case? 18 A No, never did. 19 Q Do you know where he'went to work after RRA 20 closed? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Where? 23 A The, Jaffe firm. 24 Q Did you consider going to that firm? 25 A Yes. 0082 1 Q Why didn't you go there? 2 A Because soon after they began discussing 3 forming that firm, more details about the extent of 4 Rothstein's criminal acts were coming out. I'm 5 trying to think of a way to word this. I began to be 6 concerned that just because my name was part of the 7 firm name that there could be some negative 8 association by outsiders with my name and I did not 9 want anything involving my name to affect or hurt the 10 lawyers who were forming that firm. And so, I chose 11 at that point in time to go into practice where 12 I still am today. 13 Q Now, Brad he has testified in his 14 deposition or you have testified today that you knew 15 him also at The Fitness Factory, the gym? 16 A The Fitness Company. 17 0 The Fitness Company. Okay. And did you fuzzy abou whether
'I
18 ever talk about cases at the gym?
19 A In smalltalk I might have said something 20 like, I'm starting trial tomorrow, or, I just hit a 21 verdict. Just things like that. Things that lawyers 22 talk about in passing when they see each other. 23 Q What about Brad to you, did he give you
24 similar sort of smalltalk?
25 A Not that I really recall.
0083
1 Q So is it accurate to say that until Brad 2 called you about what I'm calling the S24 3 ion verdict, because it's easier than remembering 4 the name who went bankrupt, for me it is, until he 5 called you and said he had seen something in the 6 newspaper, did you even know the kinds of cases that 7 he was working on when you would see him at the gym? 8 A I knew he was handling personal injury 9 cases, but that's about all that I knew. 10 Q Did you know at that time he had any abus 11 cases?
12 A At what time?
13 Q When you were seeing him at the gym, 14 he called you --
15 A Before he called me that day to ), 16 congratulate me about my verdict, I did pot know 17 anything about any sexual abuse cases that he had or 18 that he was handling.
19 MR. HADDAD: You guys go ahead.
20 MRS. APRIL: No. Why don't we take a 21 couple minute break, is that okay? 22 (WHEREUPON, a short break took place from 23 11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.)
24 BY MRS. APRIL:
25 Q Did you ever go to Brad office
0084
1 before he joined your firm?
2 A No. I might hive been to the Kubicki, 3 Draper firm while he was a member there, but I never 4 went into his office at that firm.
5 Q At Kubicki, Draper, this was one case you 6 had where he was on the other side, he was on the 7 defense team?
8 A I had many cases over the years with 9 Earleen Cote and with Ken and other lawyers at 10 the Kubicki, Draper firm. When Brad was 11 there, be worked as an associate to Earleen Cote. I 12 only recall I think one case where Brad showed up 13 covering a depo or doing something for Earleen. 14 Q Were you ever in a case that went to trial 15 that he was at the trial?
16 A No. I never tried a case against him.
17 Q Did you ever see him in court before he
18 joined the firm?
19 A I might have seen him in the courthouse at 20 motion calendar. But did I ever see him in trial
21 before he joined the firm --
22 Q Well, I mean, a trial or a substantive
23 evidentiary hearing or something like that?
24 A No.
25 Q Did you have any information about his
0085
1 skills as a trial lawyer?
2 A I just knew that he had been a prosecutor
3 before he joined Kubicki, Draper and I knew that he
4 had been a defense attorney; I felt that defense
5 attorneys make good plaintiff lawyers when they
6 switch sides.
7 Q To your knowledge, did Brad use an
8 attorney to represent him in his negotiations with
9 Scott Rothstein?
10 A I don't think so.
11 Q I'm not clear if your prior answer covers
12 this, so let me just ask you; Was it typical at
13 for lawyers who produced a lot of revenue for the
14 firm to get bonuses for that or do you know?
15 A Everybody had their own compensatio
16 package. So the reason I cannot answer your,.
17 is that I really wasn't familiar with the
18 compensation packages or even the bonus structure
19 that other lawyers had other than my own.
20 Q Do you know during the time that Brad
21 IIIIIII was with the firm what kind of collections,
22 if any, came into the firm as a result of his effort
23 on his cases or other cases he worked on?
24 A You call them collections. I call them
25 settlements or verdicts that were paid. I don't
0086
1 think he tried any cases, actual trials while he was
2 at RRA for the time that he was there.
3 Did he settle cases when he was there?
4 Probably, but I can't recall a specific case as I sit
5 here right now.
6 Q Is it accurate to say you don't know what
7 money came in as a result of his efforts through
8 settlement, for example?
9 A I would have kept track of that when we
10 were at the firm, but I don't know as I sit here
11 todic
12 at information, to your knowledge, would
13 be in-the hands of the Trustee?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you recall learning of any settlement of
16 a Brad case? And I'm not talking now about
17 necessarily Mr. Epstein, but any case that Brad
18 brought in that was a significant settlement.
19 A First of all, to the best of my
20 recollection, none of the Epstein cases settled while
21 he was at the firm I think I told you.
22 Q I think you said that, yes.
23 A I think he may have settled one or two
24 others cases not involving Epstein while he was at 25 RRA during the short time he was there.
0087
1 Q Do you know if they were significant 2 settlements, you know, upwards of six figures, seven 3 figures?
4 A I have no recollection. I just don't know.
5 I don't think -- There were no seven-figure
6 settlements. There might have been six figures. Are 7 you talking about the fee or the gross settlement 8 amount?
9 Q Pee.
10 A I don't think there were any six- or
11 seven-figure settlements during the short time he
12 worked there on his cases, but I might be wrong.
13 0 Are you aware of the fact that RRA financed
14 costs for the cases against Jeffrey Epstein during
15 the time Brad was at the firm?
16 A I'm aware that the firm advanced costs or, )
17 I should say, paid costs on those cases -- on cases 44,00
18 that were beirtghmdled by the Tort Group, that would
19 include Brad 1111111 cases in the most general sense.
20 Can I tell you if I know for sure, can I
21 swear under oath that the firm advanced goats on the
22 Epstein cases? I can't tell you that. If I wanted
23 to know how much money BRA advanced or had put into
24 any case, I would have to get that through the
25 Bookkeeping Department because they kept those
0088
1 records, not me. That would typically occur before
2 mediation when I had to know what the cost would be
3 or when a case settled so that we could prepare the
4 Settlement Statement.
5 Q Do you know whether 'RRA loaned any money to
6 Brad when he was a lawyer at the firm?
7 A I do net know.
8 Q Do you know what individuals worked with
9 Brad on his cases?
10 A Which cases are you referring to?
11 Q Well, let's start with the Epstein cases.
12 was there any particular lawyers or paralegals that
13 were assigned to him on those cases?
14 A At one point in time he did have a
15 secretary named Jackie, I don't know her last name.
16 Be night have had -- There was a period of time that
17 he did not have his own secretary, so I don't -- I
18 cannot tell you as we sit here today which secretary
19 or secretaries other than Jackie worked on his
20 files.
21 Q Could it have been Jackie
22 A I believe so.
23 Q What about attorneys, were there particular
24 attorneys? Did he have associate attorneys that
25 worked on his cases, more junior lawyers?
0089
1 A He was kind of the junior guy in your group 2 or one of them. He was like a junior guy, Brad. The 3 only lawyer that I recall who actually did work on 4 his case at least to some extent was Bill Berger. 5 As I said, I never really-did any 6 particular work on Brad's cases other than perhaps 7 discussing things with him from time to time or him 8 bouncing something off of me and my attending those 9 two depositions where I did not ask any questions. 10 Q Do you recall volunteering to attend a 11 deposition in an Epstein case or cases of attorney 12 Alan Dershowitz? 13 A I was interested in the fact that 14 Dershowitz was involved in the case because it's Alan 15 Dershowitz. I might have said, "I'd like to go to 16 that depo." I might have said that, but I don't 17 think the depo ever went off that I can recall. It 18 might have, but I wasn't there. 19 Q When you say you might have said you were 20 interested because of the deponent more than anyth 21 else -- 22 A The case had, the Epstein cases had some 23 interesting names in them like Dershowitz. So that 24 would have been a depo that, if I was available, I 25 would like to go and be a fly on the wall and sit 0090 1 there 2 Q Would that be true of any other, shall we 3 say, high-profile witnesses, were any of them of 4 interest to you? 5 A I don't recall anyone other than Epstein 6 himself being high profile. 7 Q What about Donald Trump, he's on television 8 every day lately? I know he's pretty high profile. 9 A I know who Donald Trump is, what about him? 10 Q Do you recall saying you would do a Trump 11 deposition if it occurred? 12 A I don't recall saying that. I mean, I 13 might have. I don't even recall Donald Trump's name 14 being associated with the Epstein cases. But then 15 again, that was several years ago. 16 Q Well, actually, those depositions were 17 being set in the Fall of 2009, so not so long ago. 18 A A lot has happened since then. If you have 19 something from me saying that I'd like to go to 20 Donald Trump's deposition, then you can show it to me 21 and I will tell you whether I recall if -- 22 Q Actually, I can't. In this case there is 23 an order that I don't fully understand that does not 24 permit me to show certain documents. So I'm going to 25 respect that order for now, but I'm just asking you 0091 1 if you remember that. 2 MRS. APRIL: Off the record. 3 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion
4 was had).
5 BY MRS. APRIL:
6 Q Did Robert Buschel ever, to your knowledge, 7 work on Epstein cases?
8 A He may have worked on some issues in 9 Epstein cases, but I don't know. Every now and then, 10 he jumped in and helped us out on issues or 11 particular cases, but I really don't know if he had 12 anything to do with the Epstein cases.
13 Q What about Judge Retired Judge Barry 14 ? You know him, right? 15 A Yes.
16 Q He was at the firm. Do you know if he did 17 any work on the Epstein cases?
18 A I have no idea. And if he did, it was not 19 at my request. But again, he was available to 20 research issues and stuff like that, and sometimes he 21 would be looking for, you know, some work to do
22 but -- 23 Q What about Mark Nurik, do you know 'Irk 24 Nurik?
\_
25 A Yes.
0092
1 Q Do you know if he did any workziNm l y 2 capacity on Epstein cases?
3 A He may have, but I don't know specifically. 4 I don't recall anything specific.
5 Q Carl Linder, do you know him?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you know if Carl Linder ever either did 8 work or gave any advice -- I'm trying to word this in 9 a way where we don't run into that work-product 10 thing. Well, did any work?
11 A Same answer.
12 Q What kind of work did Carl Linder do at the 13 firm, if you know?
14 A He did asset protection work and
15 Basically, asset protection work. II, and he did 16 some estate planning as well.
17 Q Steve Jaffe you mentioned, or maybe you 18 didn't mention, was he one of your Tort Group folks?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Do you know if he worked on Epstein cases 21 at all?
22 A Same answer.
23 Q Did Steve --
24 A Same answer: I do not have a specific 25 recollection of him working on any particular issue.
0093
1 He may have, but I don't know.
2 Q Do you recall ever assembling a meeting in 3 the west conference room with the several individuals 4 I've just mentioned or any of them, if not all of 5 them, to discuss the Epstein cases soon after, well, 6 in April of 2009?
7 A I may have. I remember, I vaguely remember 8 sometimes we would have meetings like that on cases 9 for various reasons. So, I may have.
10 Q And was your purpose in that kind of 11 meeting to make sure staffing and schedules were 12 working out as opposed to substance?
13 A First of all, I told you, I don't remember 14 specifically whether we met on that case or not. And 15 even if we did and even if it had to do with the 16 Epstein case, that would certainly be work-product 17 privilege and I would assert that privilege.
18 Q No. That's why I asked you a more generic 19 question. Typically --
20 A I can't answer a question like that, 21 typically, because there was no typically. There 22 were no regularly-scheduled meetings in any 23 particular case. We would have meetings on cases 24 from time to time for various reasons.
25 Q Earlier I had asked you questions about a 0094
1 meeting in Scott Rothstein's office that was 2 referenced in your deposition of last October, anc 3 think it's established that there was at least some 4 boxes of documents having to do with the Epstein 5 case. Do we agree on that, at least one?
6 A Apparently, that's what I testified to in 7 the Trustee case.
8 Q Do you know where those files were kept 9 when they weren't in Scott Rothstein's office? In 10 other words, where files of ' were 11 kept relative to -- Well, did you have a storage 12 room? Did he keep them in his office, do you know?
13 A They might have been kept in his office or 14 they might have been kept somewhere else by him. 15 They were his files, he brought them there and he 16 worked on them. I don't know where he kept them 17 specifically.
18 Q In your firm -- Since I never was actually 19 in your firm, that firm, did you have file areas 20 outside of the lawyers' offices where the secretaries 21 sat or where the office -- Let me ask you that: Is 22 that how some files were kept?
23 A You're asking if we had lateral filing 24 cabinets?
25 Q Yes. 0095
1 A There were some lateral filing cabinets.
2 Particularly, some lawyers had lateral filing
3 cabinets, but most did not because the firm was
4 paperless. So the files were kept off-site, cabinets 5 were kept off-site, for the most part.
6 Q Did you ever go into Brad ' office 7 at RRA?
8 A Sure.
9 Q Did you ever see any lateral filing
10 cabinets in there?
11 A Don't think so. He might have had a single 12 or something, but I don't think so.
13 Q Did you ever see sometimes lawyers have 14 boxes of documents in their office, did you ever see 15 any in his office?
16 A I don't have a specific recollection of 17 that one way or the other. I did not go -- I never 18 went in there to look at boxes, to look through 19 boxes, to count boxes or to see what boxes they were. 20 I never paid any particular attention to that, so I 21 can't answer your question.
22 Q Do you recall whether his office was neat 23 or messy?
24 A I don't have a specific recollection on 25 that one way or the other. I'm sorry.
0096
1 Q Is it accurate, I'm trying to get this 2 right, to say that at RRA there was not on-site a 3 central file room where a lawyer would request files
4 and someone would pull them and bring them to him? 5 A That is correct. There were some filing 6 cabinets, there were some banks of filing cabinets 7 that particular lawyers insisted on usinf o eying 8 for their own purposes, but not --
9 THE WITNESS: Can we go of llice cord, 10 please?
11 MRS. APRIL: Yes.
12 (WHEREUPON, an off-thers ord discussion was 13 had).
14 BY MRS. APRIL:
15 Q Do you know a padItn ed Cara
16 A Cara
17 Q Yes.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Was she pa your tort group at RRA?
20 A No.
21 Q Do you know if she was a lawyer there?
22 A She was.
23 Q Do you know what group she was in or 24 associated with?
25 A I think she was with the Alcohol Beverages
0097
1 people that came over. We brought over a couple of 2 those people and she was one of them.
3 Q She came over with some other lawyers you 4 think?
5 A I think so, yeah.
6 Q Do you know who headed up that group or who 7 was in that group besides her?
8 A I don't even know if they were a formal 9 group, per se, if they had a name.
10 Q Do you know the names of any lawyers who
11 did that kind of work there besides Cara
12 A Alcohol stuff?
13 Q Yeah. 14 A, Mike Wheeler was the other one. 15 Q Do you know if Cara was at the firm 16 before Brad 17 A I'm not positive. I think Brad was there 18 before she was, but I'm not sure. 19 Q Do you know if she was a fairly junior 20 lawyer when she came to the firm? 21 A Cara? 22 Q Yeah. 23 A I don't know when she got her law degree. 24 I couldn't tell you that. 25 Q Did you ever work with her or did she ever . 0098 1 work on your cases? 2 A Did she ever work on my cases? I don't 3 think she did, unless she worked with one of the 4 lawyers in my group on one of the cases in my 5 division, but I wouldn't necessarily know that. 6 Q Let me make sure -- Can you give me your 7 group again in 2009? 8 A First, just to expand on that, if Brad ha 9 Cara working on one of his cases or looking 10 into an issue on it, I would not necessarily know 11 that. Lawyers are free to interact and collaborate 12 with each other, it didn't have to go through me. 13 Q Okay. 14 A You want to know the names of the lawyers 15 in my tort group as of October 2009? 16 Q Yes, please. Well, 2009. Did it change a 17 lot during 2009? 18 A During 2009, I don't think so. 19 Q well, tell me who you could remember that 20 was there in 2009? 21 A Me, Gary, Steven Jaffe, Mike 22 Weissing, Tami Wolfe, Brad Mark Fistos, Seth 23 Lehrman. That's eight. Did I name Brad in that? 24 O You did. 25 A Okay. 0099 1 Q So maybe somebody left? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Bill Berger wasn't in your group? 4 A No. 5 Q Was he in a group or was he a kind of 6 cross-lines kind of guy? 7 A He was in the Boca office. He was more or 8 less a litigation attorney. 9 Q Did you know or do you know a lawyer or 10 professor named Paul Cassell? 11 A Paul Cassell? 12 Q Yes. 13 A How do you spell that? 14 Q well, I think it's C-a-s-s-e-1-1. 15 A Does not ring a bell.
16 Q Does it ring a bell if I tell you that he 17 is a professor at the University of Utah?
18 A That doesn't ring a bell either. I'm 19 sorry.
20 21 Q Do you know anybody named Howell who referred any cases to Brad Epstein (sic)?
22 A Doesn't ring a bell either.
23 24 25 Q Did you, other than Alan Dershowitz - and I think you testified you did not end up attending his deposition, maybe it didn't occur at all - did you
0100 1 agree to attend any depositions in any Epstein case 2 other than the two that you've given?
3 A I may have offered to, especially now that 4 you brought up the Dershowitz. I may have offered 5 to, but I don't have a specific recollection of which 6 ones I would have offered to, if that helps.
7 Q And if you would have attended Dershowitz's 8 deposition, it was a deposition that was 9 being noticed by your firm, right?
10 A I don't, I really don't recall.
11 Q But you offered to take it or just o 12 attend it?
13 A I didn't even remember that at al\*\*. re 14 you started reading from something that kind of 15 brought back some memory of that. I don't recall the 16 level of detail that you're asking me for.. I'm 17 sorry.
18 Q Did you ever volunteer to attend a
19 deposition of Prince Andrew of the British 20 family if it may have occurred?
21 ' A I may have, but who knows.
22 Q Why not? I wonder what kind of privileges 23 they have?
24 A I have family in England. So anything at 25 all that involves going to England I would volunteer
0101 1 for, but I really don't recall whether or not I ever 2 volunteered to take that depo. I may have.
3 Q In 2009, did you maintain another residence 4 in New York City?
5 A I had an apartment there.
6 Q So did you --
7 A In 2010 did you say?
8 Q '9.
9 A In 2009, yes.
10 Q During that time did you recall 11 volunteering to cover other New York depositions in 12 any case?
13 A I may have. Again, I don't specifically 14 recall, but I may have. I was always volunteering to
15 help out my lawyers on cases when I was needed and 16 this case was no exception, but what I volunteered 17 for and what I ended up doing on this case are two
19 Q Did you ever participate in any valuation 20 of the settlement value of any Epstein case?
21 A First of all, if I did, I believe that 22 would be work-product.
23 Q That's why it's a yes or no.
24 A And I would assert that privilege. Well,
25 it's not a yes or no, because by inserting into it 0102
1 the subject matter of any conversation you are 2 artfully attempting to poke around the work-product 3 privilege, and I would assert the privilege and 4 refuse to answer that question.
5 The answer is: I may have or I may not 6 have. I don't have a specific recollection. But if 7 I did, then it's work-product.
8 Q Let me try and understand the parameters of 9 this privilege you're raising. Are you saying that 10 if I ask you this question, this hypothetical
11 question: Did you play any role in developing a 12 strategy on Epstein cases? Are you claiming th 13 question invades the privilege?
14 A Discussing strategy on a particular case
15 Q Yes. Not what the strategy was, but if I 16 said to you: Were you involved, were you in the room 17 with people talking about the case? Do you believe 18 that question calls for a privileged answer,
19 because -- 20 A Hypothetically, a discussion about a 21 particular case, the fact that a discussion took 22 place may not be work-product, but what was discussed 23 in that discussion is work-product.
24 So when you say: Did you have a strategy 25 discussion or did you have a discussion about a
0103
1 valuation of a case, the question contains a 2 pre-supposition or content about what the discussion 3 was about and that's what makes it privileged in my 4 mind.
5 Q Although strategy is such a broad thing 6 that --
7 A Fine. Look, did I have discussions about
8 the Epstein case with Brad ? I'm sure I did.
9 What were those particular discussions about, to the 10 extent that I had them? That's work-product, as I 11 understand the work-product doctrine.
12 Q Did you actually approve any costs that
13 were expended in connection with the Epstein case,
14 costs that the firm was going to wind up paying for 15 until the case ended at least?
16 A Not as a matter of procedure. If a lawyer
17 asked me about: Can I spend money on this? Can I
18 spend money on that? I might tell them yes or no or
19 I might tell them, if it's a large expense, to go to
20 Rothstein and ask him.
21 But it was really more of a situational
22 thing. There was no procedural rule in place where I 23 would approve or disapprove costs. And I knew, 24 generally, what costs we could spend money on without 25 having to get any kind of special approval.
0104
1 Q What about investigators? Did the firm
2 have investigators who were employed by the firm?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And was Ken Jenne one of those
5 investigators?
6 A He had to do with the Investigation Unit.
7 Was he an actual investigator himself? He may have 8 been.
9 Q Was the cost of investigators assigned to 10 any case considered a cost? In other words, was that 11 charged to the file just like a court reporter or 12 some other --
13 A I don't know the answer to that question.
14 Q So the firm had an Investigative Unit, is 15 that what you called it? •
16 A At some point it did. It didn't alw 17 have that, though.
18 Q In 2009 did it have --
19 A In 2009 I think Ken Jenne was the\$4t,a 20 there was some other people who were working there, 21 top.
22 Q What about Mike Fisten, do you know if he 23 was there?
24 A Yes. Now, again, I don't know if they were 25 directly employed by the RRA Jaw trm or not and I
0105
1 don't even know if that matte y6 you. That's not 2 the kind of detail that I would have information 3 about.
4 Q So if there was a company that was formed, 5 say, Blue Line Investigations, did you ever hear of 6 that?
7 A I've heard of it.
8 Q Do you know if that wan a company formed by 9 Scott Rothstein or others at his direction?
10 A I don't know who formed it.
11 Q But did Ken Jenne and Mike Fisten have 12 offices at the firm?
13 A There was an office that Ken Jenne had at 14 some point. I don't know if Fisten had his own 15 office.
16 Q Do you know if any other investigators who 17 were at the firm in 2009 or at some company as far 18 as --
19 A I think Pat was one of them as 20 well.
21 MADAME COURT REPORTER: Can we take a 22 break?
23 MRS. APRIL: Sure.
24 (WHEREUPON, a short break took place):
25 BY MRS. APRIL:
0106
1 Q All right. I was asking you about
2 investigators.
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you know if any of the firm
5 investigators were assigned to work on the Epstein
6 case?
7 A I don't know if anyone was assigned to
8 it.
9 10 Q Do you know if they performed any services with respect to the case?
11 A I think so in the general sense, but I
12 don't really recall any details about that.
13 14 Q Do you know, did you ever hear of the term "dumpster diving"?
15 A I have heard of that term.
16 Q Do you know what it means?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What does it mean?
19 A When people go through other people's.
20 garbage.
21 Q Do you know if any investigators, eithei
22 the ones that were named or otherwise, w 8ough
23 Jeffrey Epstein's trash?
24 MR. : Objection. World
25 A I have no idea.
0107
1 2 3 Q Do you know if Jeffrey' Epstein was at any time under surveillance with s ct to persons sent by your firm?
4 A I have no idea.", )
5 Q Did you ever meet with any of the
6 7 plaintiffs in the cases that Mr. brought over that were against Jeffrey Epstein?
8 9 A I said "hello" to one of them in the lobby one time. I don't remember her name. I remember she
10 11 was one of Brad's clients. But that was it, "Hi, how are you? Nice to meet you."
12 13 Q What about with their family members or parents?
14 A Never met them.
15 Q Did you ever tell anyone outside of the
16 firm -- Well, let me rephrase that.
17 Did you ever tell anyone outside of the
18 firm or within the firm in a non-privileged
19 situation, meaning not speaking to a client, that
20 your firm was in the process of suing Jeffrey Epstein
21 and would disclose embarrassing information about Mr.
22 Epstein or his friends, family, colleagues to drive
23 up the settlement value?
24 MR. : Objection. Foundation.
25 Predicate.
0108
1 A Not to my recollection.
2 Q Did Brad ever say anything like 3 that in your presence? 4. A Not to my recollection at all. And even if 5 he did, it would be work-product but -- 6 Q Do you know what the cause of action is 7 that is brought by Jeffrey Epstein in the case that 8 we're here on today? 9 A I think I was told in the beginning some 10 kind of RICO claim or something like that. I don't 11 have a specific recollection of it, but I think it 12 was some kind of civil RICO or -- 13 Q Had you ever heard that there was an abuse 14 of process count? 15 A No, because I had never got into a 16 discussion about what all the counts were with 17 anybody. 18 Q Have you ever worked on a case that was an 19 abuse of process case? 20 A I don't think so. I have handled false 21 imprisonment cases from time to time and sometimes we 22 use abuse of process as a related tort. So maybe in 23 one or two of those cases, but for the most part, 24 no. 25 MRS. APRIL: I think maybe now would be a 0109 1 good time to break, if it's all right with you. 2 Let's go for an hour. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. What time do you want 4 to come back? 5 MR. HADDAD: /'m not coming back. You 6 don't need me here. 7 MRS. APRIL: Let's go for an hour. I will 8 still finish before you have to be out of here. 9 THE WITNESS: So we'll come back at one and 10 you'll try to finish by four? 11 MRS..APRIL: Yes. 12 (WHEREUPON, a lunch break took place from 13 12:00 p.m. to 1:10 p.m., after which the 14 following resumed outside the presence of Fred 15 Haddad, Esquire). 16 BY MRS. APRIL: 17 Q I had asked you a few questions before the 18 lunch break about an 'attorney named Cara 19 A Yes. 20 Q And I noticed that I skipped a couple of 21 points I wanted to ask about. 22 A Sure.. 23 Q Do you know what her background was? 24 A She worked for the State. 25 Q Do you know what she did for the State? 0110 1 A I think she was with the Alcohol Board, 2 ABT. 3 Q How do you know that? 4 A That's just my recollection.
5 Q Did you ever have occasion to have a 6 conversation with her?
7 A Briefly. I might have had -- Other than, 8 "Hi, how are you?" and I think maybe when she came to 9 the firm I had a brief discussion with her.
10 Q Do you know if she ever worked for any 11 Federal agency, did she ever mention that?
12 A She might have worked for the FBI now that 13 I think about it.
14 Q And what makes you think that?
15 A Something she --
16 Q You think she mentioned it?
17 A I don't know if it would have come from her 18 or someone else. I don't know.
19 Q Do you know what --
20 A Although, I'm not positive of that either.
21 It just, that kind of triggered it when you said 22 that. I'm not certain.
23 Q Did you have any other people at the firm, 24 attorneys who had a background in law enforcemen 25 like the FBI?.
0111 //'1/4 1 A The only one I can think of that had 2 background in law enforcement was Eugene Gibbon, who 3 was a Coral Gables police officer. There were a lot 4 of people there and those are the only two that come 5 to mind in law enforcement right now, other than Ken 6 Jenne, of course. And Fisten was a former law 7 enforcement.
8 Q Was Nr. Gibbons an -- He was not in your 9 group, but he was an attorney?
10 A No, he was a Labor and Employment lawyer.
11 Q Fisten you said was a former police 12 officer?
13 A I believe so.
14 Q And we know Ken Jenne was a former Sheriff?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Do you know where Ken Jenne works now or if 17 he does?
18 A I have no idea.
19 Q Have you ever spoken to him about Epstein 20 cases since the KRA firm ended?
21 A I don't think I've seen him. II, I saw
22 him. The answer is: No, I have not spoken to Ken
23 Jenne about the Epstein cases since the firm ended.
24 Q But you think you have seen him around or 25 something?
0112
1 A I think he pulled up in his car in front of 2 the building where he was in a car. He said hello to
3 me and / said, How are you doing? That was it. I
4 think that's the only time I've seen him since the 5 firm broke up.
6 Q I had asked you before the break I believe
7 about a --
MRS. APRIL: Off the record.
(WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion was had).
'BY MRS. APRIL:
Q I started to say that -- I had asked you before the break about the investigative entity for which Mr. Jenne and Mr. Fisten may have worked, and I think I may have misspoken. I said something about Blue Line. Did you ever hear of something called "Blue Line Research & Development"?
A No. I heard something about Blue Line, but I don't know the name of a specific entity if there is an entity by that name, Research & Development. I wouldn't know that.
Q Rick Fandrey, do you know who that was?
A Does not ring a bell.
Q And you mentioned earlier I think that
you believe was affiliated with the
Investigative Unit, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Do you know if he had a background enforcement?
A He was with Alcohol -- Yeah, ABT.441/ "
Q Do you know someone named Wayne Black?
A That name rings a bell. It rings a bell; I can't place what bell.
Q Do you know if he's affiliated with any investigative efforts?
A I don't. I'm trying to place that name in
my mind. I know the name, I just don't know where I know it from.
Q Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
A No.
Q Good. I had asked you some questions
earlier. In going through my notes, I see I forgot to ask you this one that may ring a bell.
Clinton, President Clinton, do you know was
he a deposition that you had ever been advised was planned?
A ,I don't recall --
MR. KING: Objection. Objection to that on the basifi of privilege, work-product.
A But I don't recall any way, so it doesn't
matter.
Q Do you ever -- I asked you about Rick
Fandrey, you said you don't know that name?
A Correct.
Q Michael Legamaro, have you ever heard of an attorney with that name?
A Legamaro.
Q L-e-g-a-m-a-r-o?
A Never heard of him.
Q Did you ever meet any attorney who might
11 have been visiting the firm in October 2009 from the 12 firm of from Chicago?
13 A No. 14 do you know that name or 15 that person?
16 A No.
17 Q Did you ever see any flight logs or 18 documents that were purportedly flight logs from an 19 Epstein airplane?
20 MR. : Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: If I ever saw them?
22 MRS. APRIL: It's been testified to by two 23 non-parties.
24 MR. : You're asking him in his
25 capacity as an attorney --
0115 1 MRS. APRIL: I'm asking him. I don't know 2 what capacity he would have seen them, but he 3 will answer or not, so --
4 A I really don't recall, to tell you the"
5 truth, one way or the other. I don't think so
6 Q Michael Szafranski, did you know s h 7 person?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Who was Michael Szafranski? A
10 A Hedge fund guy.
11 Q And when you say "hedge fund gdy," did you
12 know anything more than that about him? I mean, was 13 he the operator of a hedge fund?
14 A I didn't know any details other than that
15 he would do stuff with Scott, he was involved with 16 Scott.
17 Q Did you have occasion to meet him or be
18 introduced to him casually or at a restaurant or 19 something?
20 A He was around. At one point he was using 21 an office down on the 15th floor.
22 Q How many floors did you occupy at RRA at 23 that building where the offices were, Bank of America 24 building?
25 A need to have a point in time.
0116
1 he end, 2009?
2 A t the end we had space on 22, 16 and 15.
3 And then there was one other -- there was a couple of
4 other spaces. But I think they also might have been
5 on 15, but I'm not sure, or they might have been on 6 one other floor.
7 Q What floor were you on at that time?
8 A I was always on 16.
9 Q And when you said that Mr. Szafranski was
10 at some point using some space, do you know what 11 floor he was on?
12 A 15.
13 Q As far as you knew, it was Scott who said
14 he could use the space and Scott who dealt with him?
15 A Yeah. He dealt with Scott. My 16 understanding was he would -- he had some involvement 17 in funding deals, Scott's deals or something.
18 Q And those deals, was Scott an investor, was 19 that your understanding?
20 A Yes.
21 Q How long did you know Scott Rothstein 22 before, well, at the time of the -- either way, when 23 you joined the firm? 2005 you joined, right?
24 A I knew him from law school as an 25 acquaintance. I knew him from undergrad, University 0117
1 of Florida, as not even an acquaintance. He was just 2 a student there and we both worked security at 3 concerts together, believe it or not. But I don't 4 even think I ever even said hello to him, because I 5 just didn't know him or associate with him in 6 college. In law school, it was just, Hi, how are ou 7 doing?
8 Q How did it occur that he offered yout u 9 position at the firm?
10 A After law school I had lunch with him maybe 11 four or five times because my cases have, always come 12 from other lawyers, my personal injury cases. So 13 part of my marketing routine is to take other lawyers 14 to lunch who do not do personal injury in hopes of 15 developing referral relationships.
16 And so in either, it was probably late-2004 17 I had lunch with Scott and I was telling him about my 18 interest in technology. I was paperless at my firm 19 at the time, and I said, It's the greatest thing. 20 You gotta see it.
21 So he came over to my office and he saw it.
22 He wanted to do it as well and I was helping him.
23 And I said to him, words to the effect of, you know,
24 I would appreciate it if you would send me some
25 personal injury cases. I mean, I help my friends
0118
1 with technology. If you have any PI cases, why don't 2 you send me some?
3 And then he said, well, why don't you join
4 our law firm. We don't have a Personal Injury
5 Department and you could be that. And I saw it as a 6 great opportunity and that's how it came about.
7 Q Why did you think it was a great 8 opportunity?
9 A Because they had about seven -- they had
10 about seven lawyers at the time. They did not do
11 personal injury. They had just made a deal to
12 acquire Steve Lichtman's firm, which is commercial
13 litigation, and I just saw it as an opportunity for
14 me to not have to deal with the administrative
15 aspects of practicing law. That was one of the
16 things.
17 Number two, there would be referral sources 18 and cases being brought in by other lawyers in the 19 firm who did not do personal injury, so that appealed 20 to me. And, of course, the fact that the firm was 21 going to fund the costs in my cases as opposed to my 22 funding it out of my own pocket, so it took a lot of 23 financial stress off of me. I knew that Scott was 24 ambitious and I trusted him at the time, so it seemed 25 like a good fit. And, you know, he agreed to hire my 0119
1 staff and let me bring my lawyers with me, because I 2 liked the people who I worked with. 3 Q Did you talk at that time to the other half 4 a dozen lawyers who were in the existing Rothstein 5 firm?
6 A Well, I knew Stuart Rosenfeldt because he 7 was actually involved on a case I had years before.
8 So I knew him as an acquaintance, spoke to him. And
9 I might have said hello to some of the other lawyers 10 there, but basically it was Scott and Stuart. I 11 always Scott and Stuart's firm even to the end\*,
12 Q Were you ever aware, did you ever hear t
13 persons who were not part of your firm were sh nJ 14 portions of Epstein's files by Scott Rothstein?
15 A At what point in time?
16 Q At any point in time.
17 A I only heard that sometime in 2010 after 18 information started coming out about what he had been 19 doing. So the answer is: Never during the time that 20 I worked at the RRA firm.
21 Q Did you ever hear that Scott Rothstein
22 showed other files relating to clients of RRA to 23 persons who were not part of the firm when the firm 24 still existed?
25 A Same answer as my last answer. I only know
0120
1 what I had read in the paper and just, you know,
2 heard. That's all 2010 and after.
3 Q Did you ever get to meet Alan Dershowitz?
4 A Nope. II, yes, I did get to meet him.
5 Q Re was at the deposition of Epstein, wasn't 6 he?
7 A Not the one that I went to. I met him at a
8 Nova Southeastern University event at the Signature
9 Grande.
10 Q Stuart's client? I don't know if it was
11 Stuart's client at the time.
12 A They were Stuart's client at the time.
13 Yes, they were.
14 Q Prior to October 31st, 2009 had you ever
15 heard of the D3 Capital Club?
16 A The answer is: No, and I don't think I
17 have ever heard of that before you just said it to 18 me.
19 Q Again, let's break it down by date. Prior
20 to that date, I'm using Halloween of 2009, had you 21 ever met someone named A.J. DiScala?
22 A No.
23 Q Kretschmar, did you know him?
24 A I don't think so, no.
25 Q Did you ever meet - and when I say "meet,"
0121
1 I mean in any way, just a hand shake in the lobby --
2 A No, I understand.
3 Q -- someone named Thane Ritchey? •
4 A Thane, who?
5 Q Thane Ritchey. And it sounds like a movie 6 star or something, but he's a guy.
7 A No.
8 0 I think it's your testimony this morning
9 that you never knew that Scott Rothstein was 10 purporting to sell structured settlement investments, 11 is that correct?
12 A I always knew that Scott invested with
13 other people, but I never knew that other peopl
14 invested with Scott.
15 Q Did Scott, to your knowledge, or any e 16 investments that he said he was making, were 17 structured settlements?
18 A He never said that phrase to me,
19 "structured settlements" and he never got real
20 specific with me about his investments other than
21 those that were just outwardly known to people.
22 Q Like the watches?
23 A The watch company, the Vodka company, you
24 know, houses that he owned, cars.
25 Q Tangible things?
0122
1 A The restaurant. Just things that he made
2 it known about. Gibraltar Bank towards the end,
3 things like that. Everybody knew that he invested in
4 those things, but he never sat down and told me the
5 specifics of all of his investments or other
6 investments that weren't widely known.
7 Q Did he ever invite you to join him in any 8 of those investments?
9 A Did he ever invite me? Early on in 2005, I 10 think it was, it might have been 2006, there was a
11 townhouse project. I think I spoke about this in my
12 Trustee deposition. There was a townhouse project
13 that had to be completed and he needed money, or
14 whatever. And he said I would get a lot of money
15 back. I actually took out a home equity line on my
16 house for \$100,000 and I gave him a check for the
17 \$100,000.
18 So, the answer to that extent is yes.
19 That's the only thing that I was ever really invited
20 to participate in. And I lost money on it, by the
21 way. I got back about 80,000 over time, so I was out
22 about 20 grand.
23 Q I think you testified earlier that you had 24 not ever seen Brad ' deposition that he had 25 given in this case?
0123
1 A I have never seen it, that's correct. 2 Q I want to clarify a couple of things. Mr. 3 has testified at his deposition - and I have 4 it in the room if you want to see it - that he 5 discussed the Epstein cases with you on a regular 6 basis, is that a true statement?
7 A In a general sense, yes. Specifically, as 8 I said, there were issues that might have come up 9 where he would ask me about or bounce things off of 10 me.
11 Q And if I were to ask you those issues, you 12 would say it's work-product?
13 A Correct. Although, I will tell you that my 14 answer applies to all of his cases and everyone 15 else's cases. I try to keep an overall understanding 16 of what's going on with people's cases, because 17 always wanted to help and see where they were.2"
18 Q Be also testified - and, again, I can'sh 19 it to you if you like. I brought it so it would be 20 convenient - that you worked on the Epstein files, is 21 that a true statement?
22 MR. : Objection to form. 23 A Well, it's true to the extent that I 24 testified to today. If there is anything else 25 specifically that he said, I'd like to know about it.
0124
1 Because you gotta remember that, I was responsible 2 for overseeing all of the cases in my division, over 3 nine lawyers, including class-action, mass tort, 4 general liability, premises liability, medical mal. 5 All of those things. So when you ask me those 6 questions, you know, that's one of the reasons why -- 7 And, II, by the way, I had a very large caseload 8 myself.
9 Q Yes.
10 A I personally worked on my own cases every 11 day. So, did I do some work on the Epstein case? 12 I'm sure I did. I told you the extent of what I 13 remembered. But you gotta also remember that, I was 14 inquisitive about every lawyer's cases in my group 15 because I was a real take-charge person from an 16 administrative viewpoint just about making sure cases 17 were being litigated, that the lawyers had anything 18 they needed to do, that they were happy, that they 19 were well-staffed, and things like that.
20 Q Do you know whether the Epstein cases were, 21 I'm not sure of the verb for this, whether that QTASK 22 was used for any of the Epstein cases?
23 A I'm sure it was.used to some extent.
24 Q Earlier I did ask you a question - and I 25 think that Mr. objected and maybe you declined 0125
1 to answer as well - concerning whether you had ever 2 had any discussions about the value of the Epstein 3 cases.
4 Mr. testified in response to this 5 question, Page 292 of his deposition, that he gave on 6 March 23rd of last year. He was asked this question:
7 "QUESTION: Did you ever have a 8 conversation with other attorneys regarding the 9 value of the Epstein cases that you had?
10 "ANSWER: Yes.
11 "QUESTION: Okay. With whom?
12 "ANSWER: Adler, Bill Berger. I
13 believe that's it." 14 Do you concur with that?
15 A If that's what he said then I probably did. 16 I just don't remember specific conversations with him 17 about that.
18 Q Did you know or hear that Mr. Epstein was a 19 wealthy man?
20 A I heard.
21 Q What did you hear about his wealth?
22 A That he was very wealthy and he was go 23 fund guy from New York City. And just for the ke 24 of completeness, you know, I was always concerned 25 about the value of all of the cases in the Personal
0126
1 and in the Tort Division, it's a part of keeping 2 track of a tort practice group.
3 Q You must have also been interested in 4 collectibility, that's part of it, isn't it?
5 A Yes. Of course.
6 Q Do you know how much money the Rothstein, 7 Rosenfeldt & Adler firm invested - that may be the 8 wrong word - advanced to support the Epstein cases?
9 A I have no idea. Assuming they did.
10 Q I'm sorry, you said --
11 A I said, assuming that they did.
12 Q You don't know that they did?
13 A I never cut or signed one check while I was 14 at that firm for the firm.
15 Q Do you know whether any depositions were 16 taken during the time that you were aware of it?
17 A I believe they were, but I don't know if 18 the bills were paid. Bills were submitted to the 19 Bookkeeping Department and checks were issued from 20 the Bookkeeping Department. You know, I wasn't 21 involved in that, per se, unless there was an issue 22 with bills not getting paid that would come to my 23 attention, cost bills.
24 Q You had mentioned to me the name of an 25 attorney I think at Kubicki, Draper earlier today,
0127
1 Earleen Coat (pronouncing)?
2 A Cote (pronouncing), C-o-t-e. Cote.
3 4 Q Do you know whether she had any involvement of any type in the Epstein cases?
5 6 7 A To the best of knowledge, no. She's an insurance defense lawyer. That's what they do, insurance defense work.
8 9 10 Q Do you know whether Brad continued to have a friendly relationship with her at the time that he was at RRA?
11 12 A Yeah.. I think he was friendly with her, but he was friendly with a lot of people.
13 14 15 16 Q Do you remember Brad showing you drafts of pleadings or documents to be filed in the Epstein case for your review? I'm talking before they were filed.
17 18 19 20 21 A Not specifically. So he may have, but maybe not. That's a tough one, because I saw a lot of pleadings and things from a lot of cases that other lawyers who worked in my group would ask me about or that I would review for them, or whatever.
22 23 24 25 0128 Nsfr Q Let me show you an e-mail that is not in the restricted category, it's not an attorney's-eyes-only document, from Brad you dated April 15, 2009. This is what I'm going to
1 show?
2 3 4 MR. : You said it's notip estricted category. Which category is it? Where did it come from?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 memory. MRS. APRIL: Well, it was from a category called irrelevant, but not an eyes-only or under any confidentiality in this case. It's a bit of a challenge to figure out. And in an abundance of caution, I'm not going to make it an exhibit in case this deposition should be filed, but I'm going to show it to him to refresh his
13 MR. My understanding from the order, 14 and I'll take another look at it, but I read the 15 order as none of those documents could be 16 used with respect to any particular witness or 17 disclosure of any of these documents unless and 18 until the court ordered it, whether it was based 19 on the category of relevance or it was based on 20 the for-eyes-only category.
21 MRS. APRIL: All right. Then let me ask 22 you this: Since Mr. Adler is somebody who is 23 claiming work-product and was at the firm, if 24 you object to me showing him these documents - / 25 won't, but I thought it might prevent him from
0129 1 coming back at a later time - but if you have an 2 objection, I won't show it to him.
3 MR. : I do. And it also goes to 4 work-product, so that would cover that as 5 well.
6 MRS. APRIL: Well, the problem I have is, 7 none of them were stamped like I would do with 8 work-product. 9 MR. : I don't know what happened with 10 regard to them. 11 MRS. APRIL: I don't either. It's a 12 nightmare. 13 MR. : You read the order differently? 14 MRS. APRIL: Well, is it the confidentiality 15 order that was never signed or is there another 16 order -- 17 Let's go off the record for a minute. 18 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion was 19 had). 20 MRS. APRIL: Let's go back on the record. 21 BY MRS. APRIL: 22 Q I am not going to show you certain documents 23 because in an abundance of caution perhaps there's an 24 interpretation that says I should not. So I will try 25 to ask my questions in such a way that if you c 0130 1 answer them, then answer them. If not -- 2 But I will say, so it's a matter -% 3 that to the extent that there are some answe -0 €hat 4 we don't get and there is a court ruling on any of 5 this and we need to show it to you, we'll have you 6 back. We'll subpoena you again. 7 A I guess that's up to the judge. 8 Q Right. You're not retiring to another 9 country any time soon, are you? 10 A I have no plans to do that presently. 11 Q Do you remember Brad ever 12 communicating with you verbally or in an e-mail that 13 he had missed a hearing in an Epstein case and it was 14 transferred to Judge Hafele? Do you ever remember 15 having any communication about that? 16 A Would that be work-product? 17 MR. : Can I have the question back? 18 (WHEREUPON, the requested testimony was 19 read back by the court reporter). 20 MR. : I think in an abundance of 21 caution, I think that falls within work-product. 22 I think once you start opening the door as to 23 even a conversation about something that may 24 have occurred in court, I think that would be -- 25 MRS. APRIL: So you're instructing him not 0131 1 to answer? 2 MR. : Yes. 3 MRS. APRIL: Okay. I guess you can't have 4 it both ways, because I imagine on some of this 5 he might say, no, I don't remember, and that 6 would be done. Okay, as you wish. 7 MR. : And that eliminates the need for 8 any motions on a particular question if he
9 doesn't have a recollection. So I invite him, 10 if he can state that he has no recollection of 11 the matter, that would not -- 12 THE WITNESS: Fine. I will tell you this 13 and I don't think this is going to offend 14 anybody, I remember Judge Hafele had one of the 15 cases. I don't specifically remember Brad 16 telling me he missed the hearing, but he may 17 have. Who knows. 18 BY MRS. APRIL: 19 Q Were you ever acquainted with a Dr. Swan 20 who was a psychologist or psychiatrist? 21 A Yes. She was -- Yes, I met her one 22 time. 23 Q Do you know if she was retained by your 24 firm to work on anything? 25 A I will assert work-product privilege as to 0132 1 the answer to that question. 2 Q I think earlier, quite earlier in the 3 deposition you had mentioned that Brad 4 some point had an assistant or legal assist 5 Jackie? 6 A Yes. 7 8 9 A 10 Q 11 point he 12 A 13 14 she with 15 A 16 17 to Judge 18 from Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley that 19 provided him with a contact list of names? 20 Did you ever see that? 21 A Nope. I believe that would have to have 22 been after 2009, right? 23 Q Yes. 24 A The answer is absolutely no. 25 Q March of this year? 0133 1 A Nope. 2 Q Did you do anything to prepare for this 3 deposition today, look at any documents or have any 4 meetings? 5 A Other than what I've testified to, no. 6 Q What did you testify to? I didn't hear you 7 talk about that. 8 A Other than a brief conversation with Brad 9 where I told him about the fact that I 10 believe there's going to be a lot of work-product 11 that's going to be asked about. Q Do you know if she was still working with him in October right before the firm broke up? I think so, but I'm not positive. I think your testimony earlier was at one had his own assistant? Correct. I was trying to determine the point. Was him at the very beginning? No. Have you seen a document that was submitted Carney, the Special in this case,
12 Q Other than the Brad conversation --
13 A Nope.
14 Q -- and shortly before we began today?
15 Do you know someone named Christina Fitch
16 who is described as having been a staff member at
17 RRA?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who was she and what was her function, if
20 you know?
21 A She started out as a clerical employee in
22 my practice group and she ended up being a secretary,
23 being promoted.
24 Q Did she work with Mr. at all, do
25 you know?
0134
1 A She did things for pretty much everybody in 2 the tort group here and there.
3 Q Did you ever hear of an attorney named Alan
4 Garten, G-a-r-t-e-n?
11 group.
12 Was he an attorney at
a member oft 10 A No. He was not
5 A Garten?
6 Yes.
7 A No.
8 Adam Steinberg, was he a membe &
9 group?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What was his practice area?
15 A Commercial litigation.
16 Q Beth Williamson, did she work as a
17 paralegal with your group?
18 A Yes.
19 Q I had asked you earlier if you knew anyone
20 named Howell, but I didn't have at my fingertips the
21 complete name. An attorney named Jay Howell, does
22 that mean anything to you?
23 A Nope.
24 Q Denis Kleinfeld, he was also an attorney at
25 RRA when yo were there, right?
0135
1 A ASE,
2 Q -- To your knowledge, did he provide any legal
3 services with respect to the Epstein cases?
4 A Not to my knowledge, but he may have.
5 Q And Carl Linder worked in the same practice
6 area?
7 A As Denis Kleinfeld, yes.
8 Q Elizabeth III, was she a paralegal attached
9 to your group?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Do you Inow if she worked on the Epstein
12 cases?
13 A I don't know. I don't recall.
14 Q Elizabeth %Filler, V-i-1-1-a-r, do you know
15 who she was?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Was she in your practice area?
18 A I'm trying to put the name with the face.
19 I think I know who she is. And if I'm correct, she 20 worked in real estate, but I'm not positive.
21 Q Was Grant an attorney at RRA during 22 the time you were there?
23 A Yes.
24 Q What practice area was he?
25 A He didn't really practice, per se. He was
0136
1 involved on the political side, the lobbying. He was
2 a politico kind of guy. And toward the very end he
3 got some administrative spot within the firm,
4 assistant something or other.
5 Q Do you know whether he had any involvement
6 whatsoever with any of the cases against Jeffrey
7 Epstein?
8 A Who.
9 Q Grant
10 A To my knowledge, he had nothing to do>w
11 it. But once again, he may have. On a regular basis
12. lawyers in that firm would reach out to other lawyers
13 who had knowledge in certain subjects or to do
14 certain things or to assist them or maybe they were
15 free, or whatever. But, you know, it didn't have to
16 go through me if it involved those cases
17 necessarily.
18 Q Well, I understand. You did say that. But
19 in the case of Hr. , for example, who was a
20 lobbyist, do you know whether or not he did any
21 hands-on legal work on the cases?
22 A To my knowledgejhbe did not.
23 (WHEREUPON an oft-the-record discussion
24 was had).
25 BY MRS. APRIL:
0137
1 Q Was Jo, do you know an attorney
2 by that name
3 A
4 Q Yes.
5 A No.
6 Q Jonathan Burkman, was he with the firm?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What practice area was he attached to, if
9 you know?
10 A He was a brand new lawyer, so he was
11 helping out. He was helping us out on some of our
12 cases. I mean, he got admitted to the Florida Bar
13 very soon before the firm blew up.
14 0 He was sort of the utility guy?
15 A Yeah. He was helping out people around the
16 firm. He was doing some work for us.
17 Q I think you mentioned earlier the name
18 Michael Wheeler. Forgive me, I know he was not in 19 your group. Was he in that Alcohol group? 20 A If you want to call it that. I don't know 21 that there was a formal title. 22 Q Well, I mean, group is the wrong word I 23 think you said. 24 Let me ask you this: To your knowledge, 25 did he do any work on the Epstein cases?
0138
1 A To my knowledge, he did not. But again -- 2 Q He might have been a pair of hands when 3 they needed someone?
4 A Possibly.
5 Q or you may have described it differently? 6 A It's theoretically possible, but / can't 7 tell you whether he had any involvement or not. 8 You've gotta ask Brad that one.
9 Q Do you know an individual who was with the 10 firm, Paaqual or Pat
11 A I don't think so.
13 I'm not sure if it's pronounced Wise or Weis D 12 Ronald Wise, W-i-s-e is how it's spell, • 14 you know a person by that name?
15 A Does not sound familiar.
16 Q Did the RRA firm have any Fortgkcs 17 Department, ancillary --
18 A Forensics Department? No th knew 19 of.
20 21 Q I'm not sure. Tami Wolfe, did you say that she was an attorney attached to your group?
22
23
24 25 group? Q She was the only woman I recall hearing the name of. Did you have any women lawyers in your
0139
1 A In the law firm or in my group?
2 Q No, in your tort group?
3 A No.
4 0 It doesn't matter. It was an idle 5 question.
6 Susan Stirling, do you remember her working 7 at the firm?
8 A Stirling, no.
9 Q Stirling with an I, S-t-i-r-l-i-n-g. 10 As a staff member, do you remember any
11 Susan's who were working at the firm?
12 A There might have been. There's been a lot
13 of people who worked there, you know. Some people
14 came and went. I don't remember that name
15 specifically.
16 Q Did you have your own legal assistant that
17 was just one that worked primarily for you during
18 2009?
19 A Did I have one that worked primarily for me
20 in 2009? I had two that worked primarily for me in
A Yep.
21 2009.
22 Q What were their names? 23 A Nora, N-o-r-a, Hatian, H-a-t-i-a-n, and
24 Elizabeth III.
25 Q Who you had mentioned?
0140
1 A You had mentioned.
2 Q I had asked about her name, but I didn't 3 ask you that specific question.
4 Q Have you ever used the term "logistics" in 5 connection with your work as a lawyer?
6 A Sure.
7 Q What does it mean?
8 A Generally speaking?
9 Q Well, as you used it in your practice.
10 A Logistics? I suppose technical or 11 mechanical details having to do with the workings of 12 something. That's what I was able to come up with on 13 the spot.
14 Q So is it accurate to say that Scott
15 Rothstein might be someone you would look to fp, 16 logistics in getting your work done?
17 A What specifically do you mean by thee?
18 ) Well, did you ever look to him in 19 connection with any of the cases, the Epstein cases 20 as a resource for logistics?
21 A As a resource for logistics? I don't
22 recall that specifically, but if I did, it would be
23 work-product. I'm not entirely clear what you mean
24 by logistics in the context that you used it, for the 25 record. It's vague and overly broad.
0141
1 Q You ever been to Jeffrey Epstein's, any of 2 Jeffrey Epstein's homes or houses?
3 A No.
4 Q Did you ever sign any -- Strike that.
5 Do you know what a Non-Prosecution
6 Agreement is?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Do you know if there was one concerning
9 Jeffrey Epstein?
10 A I would only have learned that from other
11 lawyers in the firm in connection with the handling
12 of those cases. And so, I believe the response is
13 protected by the work-product privilege which I
14 assert at this time.
15 Q No, you could have learned it after the
16 firm broke up. You could have read about it. I
17 guess I'm asking you: Are you asserting the
18 privilege or are you speculating that you're
19 asserting the privilege?
20 A I'm asserting the privilege.
21 tot. : Let me hear that question the
22 way it was phrased.
23 THE WITNESS: If I knew about a
24 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
25 MADAME COURT REPORTER: Would you like to
0142
1 hear the question?
2 MR. : No, I'm just --
3 THE WITNESS: There weren't, but I will 4 tell you that I knew about it before the firm 5 broke up. That's all I'm going to say without
6 waiving anything.
7 MRS. APRIL: Let me take a couple of 8 minutes. I think I'm close to being finished. 9 (WHEREUPON, an off-the-record discussion
10 was had). 11 BY MRS. APRIL:
12 Q Let's try and wrap this up. Mr. Adler, 13 earlier in the day I had asked you and you answered
14 some questions concerning a meeting in Mr.
15 Rothstein's office when there were some boxes of 16 files that are referred to as relating somehow to 17 Jeffrey Epstein. Do you recall the conversatio
18 we had or the testimony?
19 A I recall the questions. I recall being' 20 shown the testimony I gave in the Trustee case.
21 Q In the Trustee case. And I don't know if I 22 had you look this far, Mr. Lichtman asked you if you
23 still had e-mails that were referenced in his 24 questions. Let me do this a little clearer. I'm 25 trying to figure out where the string starts.
0143
1 On Page 133 of this transcript, which
2 you're welcomed to look at.
3 A May I?
4 Q Let me just read this part into the record,
5 though.
6 A Sure.
7 Q Mr. Lichtman.had asked you a question
8 beginning on 132:
9 "QUESTION: What did he say" -- he, being 10 Scott - "to you that day when all the Epstein 11 books were physically in front of you and the
12 other lawyers were with you?
13 "ANSWER: Let me think about that." 14 Then you go on to talk about some of the
15 things you've testified about and you say:
16 "ANSWER: But I will tell you, and I know
17 you have all of the e-mails," you to him.
18 "No, in fact," says Mr. Lichtman, "I don't 19 have those e-mails. I have not seen them."
20 This is on 133:
21 "ANSWER: There were e-mails toward the end 22 there, okay. We were all e-mailing back and 23 forth about what are you talking about, what do 24 you want this for? And he," Scott Rothstein, 25 "was like, I want an answer right now. I need
1 an answer right now.
2 "And, you know, we answered the questions 3 the best we could, but we had no idea what on 4 earth he was talking about. And that was maybe 5 a week or 10 days before we found out that he 6 took off and this whole thing came to light."
7 There's some more dialogue and then he
8 says, Hr. Lichtman, to you:
9 "QUESTION: Do you still have those
10 e-mails?"
11 And you said:
12 "ANSWER: I probably do if they are in the
13 e-mails that I took with me."
14 So what I'm asking you is, this was last
15 year: Did you look to see if you had those e-mails,
16 the ones that were going up and back that you
17 testified about in those 10 days before?
18 A Did I specifically go back and look for the
19 e-mails that were referenced in the answer from my
20 Trustee deposition that you just read?
21 Q Yes.
22 A I don't think I did after the deposition
23 because there was no follow-up request to produce
24 those documents. I may have, I may have reviewed my
25 e-mails to pull things out in preparation for the
0145
1 trial of that case which, of course, settled soon
2 before trial. I don't specifically recall if I
3 looked for or pulled those out or not. Those were
4 not a material issue as far as I was concerned in the
5 Trustee case.
6 I mean, the issues that you're interested
7 in in this case were not really part of the
8 allegations against me in the Trustee case, it was a
9 different focus.
10 Q Have you destroyed any e-mails that you
11 had, that you took from the firm since you left the
12 firm or since the firm broke up?
13 A No, I haven't. Although, there was a -- I
14 think I might have accidentally deleted either an IN
15 basket or a SENT basket, but that had been converted
16 from the format I had taken them in and I think I
17 still have the original files that I had taken them
18 in -- the original file formats that I had taken them
19 in. I would have to look, but I'm pretty sure I
20 still have it.
21 Q All right. So those e-mails, you're not
22 claiming those e-mails are work-product, are you?
23 A Which e-mails are you referring to, please?
24 Q The ones that are referenced in the
25 dialogue I just read between you and Hr. Lichtman
0146
1 concerning the meeting when Scott Rothstein was
2 asking questions that you and the others claim not to
3 know where he was coming from?
4 A This is the same issue as far as I'm 5 concerned that we have discussed earlier. If there 6 were communications between us concerning the Epstein 7 case or having anything to do with the Epstein case, 8 and I'm not even clear if at that time I was aware 9 that we were being asked pertaining to the Epstein 10 cases or not, I'm not clear on that as we sit here, 11 but if they did pertain to the Epstein case they 12 would be work-product for sure.
13 I know that you've just read me portions of 14 a transcript, but it's a transcript that you obtained 15 from litigation between the Trustee, who had stepped 16 into the shoes of the law firm, and me.
17 In other words, I was not in a position in 18 that deposition to assert any work-product privileges 19 because it was against, effectively, my law firm 20 which shared the same privileged information as I had 21 as an attorney there.
22 Again, I am not clear if at the time we 23 were called into Scott's office, the questions 24 you were reading me, I would have to look at i 25 I thought it had to do with Epstein or not,
0147
1 clearly would be work-product. If it had 't ith 2 something else, another case, it would be I, 3 work-product I believe. But --
4 Q I'm sorry. Are you still answering?
5 A No. I think I've answered it pretty 6 completely.
7 Q As I'm reading the testimony you gave 8 there, and please take a moment to read it if it 9 makes more sense to you, your testimony is that you 10 didn't know why he was asking you questions and he 11 didn't associate it with any particular case. And 12 other than there were some boxes in the room that 13 somehow you knew to be Epstein, there doesn't seem to 14 be any testimony in the world that it even relates to 15 a case?
16 A Rang on a minute. Let me take a look.
17 0 Please do.
18 A .why don't we do it this way to make sure 19 that I give accurate and consistent testimony here, 20 which is my intention.
21 The stuff that you're asking me about is 22 contained on Pages 131 through 133 of my deposition 23 from the Trustee case, okay?
24 Q Uh-huh (affirmative response). 25 A And I will acknowledge that those are the
0148
1 answers I gave under oath to those questions. As I
2 sit here today, that is the best of my recollection 3 that I have with regard to answering your question.
4 Q But if you look at Page 135 --
5 A 135? 6 Q -- Line 1, because it goes on, the 7 discussion.
8 A About the e-mails?
9 Q Yeah. My question is --
10 A I said, probably do if they are in the 11 e-mails that I took with me."
12 And I told you earlier today in this
13 deposition that I think I took a copy of my e-mails
14 or my e-mail boxes with me when I physically left the
15 RRA firm. And so, the answer in the Trustee
16 deposition is consistent with the answer I gave you 17 earlier today.
18 Q Let me ask you this since it looks like
19 you're trying to be consistent: If you have those
20 e-mails, I believe they would have been responsive to
21 the subpoena for today, because there was some other
22 e-mails that you said you didn't think of.
23 So, can I ask you to do this: When you
24 look at the other e-mails and if these e-mails are in
25 there, would you let me know that even if you
0149
1 identify them as work-product? Yes, I have th
2 e-mail.
3 A As I stated before, I believe I h v
4 obligation to do that and I will.
5 Q Do I need to subpoena you furthet-f that
6 or can we just agree that you will do that?.
7 A A subpoena would be unnecessary. An e-mail
8 would be nice. I think there was something else I
9 told you earlier that I would look for, I think it
10 has to do with e-mails betwee miltd Brad
11 before he joined the firm.
12 Q That's right.
13 A If you would just send me an e-mail to that
14 effect, I would be happy to look it up for you to
15 either produce it to Brad's lawyer or to assert
16 privilege and identify what I have.
17 MRS. APRIL: That would be fine.
18 MR. KING: Would you be kind enough to
19 copy Jack Scarola on that e-mail?
20 MRS. APRIL: Uh-huh (affirmative response).
21 MR. : And his secretary Mary,
22 mpp@searcy --
23 MRS. APRIL: Yes, I know Mary.
24 A It appears from the answers I gave in the
25 deposition that at the time we had this -- we were
0150
1. called in for the meeting there were Epstein files
2 present in Scott's office. But you're correct, I
3 never directly linked the two together in my answer.
4 I can only go by my best recollection which is
5 really, truly contained in those answers.
6 Q Prior to today have you had any
7 conversations with anybody at the firm of Searcy,
8 Denney concerning this lawsuit?
9 A Nope.
10 MRS. APRIL: I do not have any other 11 questions. I am reserving the right to ask you 12 to come back if, in fact, the privilege issues 13 are determined and it is still necessary. 14 THE WITNESS: I will come back if and only 15 if I am ordered to do so by the judge. But if 16 he orders me to come back and answer certain 17 things, I will do exactly as he tells me to 18 do.
19 MRS. APRIL: Well, we don't have to quibble 20 about how that works, because if he rules and 21 we have a court order that says certain things 22 are not work-product and we send you a subpoena; 23 I'm not sure if that's what you're talking 24 about or if you're saying you need to have a 25 specific court order that says you need to show 0151
1 up. Is that what you're saying? 2 THE WITNESS: That is what I'm saying. I 3 will not come back here voluntarily. If the 4 judge orders me to re-appear to answer those 5 questions, that's fine.
6 And the reason for that comes back to the 7 fact that I gave deposition testimony in a case 8 with a completely different procedural posture 9 than this one and I have asserted the 10 work-product privilege, because I believe that 11 it applies in these specific situations.
12 In other words, it may well be that in one 13 context information is work-product privilege, 14 but in another context it isn't. And if that's 15 the case, that's why I insist on an order 16 directing me to appear and testify and answer 17 those questions. I think that's reasonable.
18 MRS. APRIL: I think without necessarily 19 agreeing to the procedure, I think that if such 20 time comes as the court finds a waiver or a 21 partial waiver or something, we can work it out.
### 22 CROSS EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. RING: 24 Q I only have one area to inquire about and 25 that was relating to how Brad ended up getting to the 0152
1 firm. I just want to make sure there is no 2 inconsistency between what you've recounted here 3 earlier and Brad's testimony.
4 He had recalled that when the two of you 5 would meet at the gym that there were occasions in 6 which you inquired of him whether he would be 7 interested in coming with the firm and that you B talked to him about the good people who were at the 9 firm and the good comradery at the firm. Do you 10 recall conversations along those lines?
11 A Sure. And anyone who I respected as a 12 personal injury lawyer, I would always put the word
Lee Lynott, RMR, RPR
out that we were looking to grow our practice group. And, you know, I mean, I had a really prominent group
of lawyers there.
Q This was not a situation where was
seeking out the job with your firm; this was a situation where you came to him, ultimately, and followed it up and asked him to meet with Rothstein
relating to joining the firm?
A Correct. As a result of the phone call he
made to me after my verdict I got in Palm Beach.
MR. : Very good. That's all I have. MRS. APRIL: You have the right to read
this, as I'm sure you know.
THE WITNESS: MRS. APRIL: THE WITNESS: MRS. APRIL:
We'll order it.
I know.
Do you want to?
Yes.
He does not waive. He reads.
MR. : We'll get a copy.
(WHEREUPON, the deposition concluded 3:00 p.m. and the witness chose to Read
Sign).
AK (::!)CERTIFICATE OF OATH
Suit OP FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD
I, Lee Lynott, Certified Merit Reporter,
Notary Public, State of Florida, certify that S. ADLER personally appeared before me on the 20th
day of April 2011 and was duly sworn.
Signed this 5th day of May 2011.
13
#### MY COMMISSION # DD996092 EXPIRES: June 29, 2014 Notary Public Underwriters
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 0155
### 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF FLORIDA
)as
3 COUNTY OF BROWARD
4 I, Lee Lynott, Certified Shorthand Reporter an
5 Registered Merit Reporter in and for the County o
6 Broward, State of Florida, do hereby certify:
7 That prior to being examined S. ADLER,
8 the witness named in the foregoing deposition, was
9 duly sworn by the undersigned to testify to the
10 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 That said deposition was taken before me at the
12 time and place set forth and was taken down by me in
13 shorthand and thereafter reduced to computerized
14 transcription under my direction and supervision, and
15 I hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true and
16 correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
17 I further certify that I am neither counsel for
18 nor related to any party to said action nor in
19 anywise interested in the outcome thereof.
20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed
21 my name this 6th day of May 2011. 22
23
24
25
0156
1
Lee Lynott, RMR, RPR Notary Public, State of Florida MY COMMISSION # DD996092 EXPIRES: June 29, 2014 Notary Public Underwriters
### READ NOTICE
2
3
4 May 5, 2011
5
6 S. Adler
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
8 9
IN RE: Jeffrey Epstein vs. Scott Rothstein, et al.,
10
11 Dear Mr. Adler:
12 Please be advised that your deposition given on April 20, 2011 is ready for your Reading and Signing.
13
Please contact our offices to make arrangements to
14 Read your deposition transcript within 30 days from receipt. However, if you have decided not to Read
15 and Sign, please let us know as soon as possible. Sincerely, 11RY hesitate to call. 5: 1 ERRATA SHEET 4 following corrections listed below): 5 PAGE/LINE CORRECTIOILI REASON FOR CORRECTION
18
19
17
16 If you should have any questions, please do not
22
23
Lee Lynott, AMR
20 Court Reporter
21 cc: Service List
24
25
0157
2 I, the undersigned, S. ADLER, do hereby certify that I have read the foregoing deposition and 3 that, to the best of my knowledge,-said deposition is true and accurate (with the exception of the
6
12 13
14 15
16 See attached sheet(s) for additional information:
Yes No
17
18 STATE OF
) as.:
19 COUNTY OF
20 Subscribed and sworn to before me, this day of, 2011.
21
23
Notary Public
Date
24 My commission expires:
25
NOTA CERTIFIED COPY
### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
In re:
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A.'
Debtor.
HERBERT St hl I1N, Chapter 11 Trustee,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADLER and KATIE ADLER,
Defendants.
CISC No. 09-34791-BKC-RBR
Chapter 11
Adv. Pro. No. {WC-RBR-A - O 'Y
# COMPLAINT AGAINST ADLER AND KATIE ADLER TO AVOID AND RECOVER FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY=
Plaintiff, Herbert Stettin, the duly appointed and acting Chapter 11 Trustee ("Trustee" or "Plaintiff- ) for the estate of Rothstein Rbsenfeldt Adler, P.A., hereby sues the Defendants, Adler ("Adler") and Katie Adler, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 548 and 550, and Rule 7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, to avoid and recover fraudulent transfers and for other claims, and in support thereof, states:
.is adversary proceeding is brought by the Trustee to avoid and recover frauattlent transfers pursuant to II U.S.C. §§ 544, 548, 550 and FM. Stat. §§ 726.105 and
# JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 Plaintiff reserves the right to bring additional claims against Adler and nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or causes of action that the Trustee or the estate may have against Adler.
The address and last four digits of the taxpayer identification number of the debtor is 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suitc
726.106.
- 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) and 1334(b).
- 3. This is a core proceeding for which the Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters regarding this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (H).
- 4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
# PARTIES AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
- 5. On November 10, 2009, an Involuntary Petition for Relief was filed against Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A, the debtor in the above-captioned case (the "Debtor" or "RRA") (DE#1). On November 25, 2009, a consent to the Involuntary Petition for Relief was filed by RRA (DE# 57). On November 30, 2009, this Court entered an Order for Relief on the filing of a Petition for Involuntary Bankruptcy (DE# 66).
- 6. On November 20, 2009,• the United States Trustee's Office filed a Notice Appointing Plaintiff Stettin as Trustee of RRA (DE #35). On November 25, 2009, this Court entered an order ratifying the appointment of Plaintiff Stettin as Trustee (DE #55.)
- 7. Defendant Adler is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida. Adler is a former employee of RRA and an attorney, authorized to practice law in the State of Florida. Adler received the transfers set forth herein from RRA within four years of the filing of the Petition Date.
- 8. Defendant Katie Adler is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida. Adler and is the wife of Adler. Katie Adler received the transfers set forth herein from RRA within four years of the filing of the Petition Date.
- 9. RRA is a Florida professional services corporation, formed on February 7, 2002 by Scott W. Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Stuart Rosenfeldt ("Rosenfeldt"). Although the firm's
practice was originally focused on labor and employment law, it expanded to other areas of law, including intellectual property, corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, criminal defense, class actions, mass torts and personal injury claims. At its height, RRA employed over 70 lawyers, with total staff of over 150 people on payroll, maintaining offices in Florida, New York and Venezuela.
## GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
10. Prior to November 2, 2009, Rothstein was the Chief Executive Officer, managing partner and a 50% shareholder of RRA. Rosenfeldt was the President and also a 50% shareholder of RRA.
01. On November 2, 2009, Rosenfeldt initiated a lawsuit in Broward County Circuit Court (Case No. 09-059301)("Receivership Action") on behalf of RRA and himself, for judicial dissolution of the firm, an accounting, and ap nuncit of a receiver, pursuant to Florida Statutes H 607.1430(3), 607.1431 and 607.1432.
01. In the Receivership * plaint ("Rosenfeldt Complaint"), Adler and RRA alleged that Rothstein had engage in Aultiple wrongful acts. The Rosenfeldt Complaint pleads that Rothstein orchestrated a substantial misappropriation of funds from investor trust accounts that made use of RRA's name. The Rosenfeldt Complaint also alleges that the investment business created and operated by Rothstein centered around the fraudulent sale of interests in structured settlements and that "various funds unrelated to the practice of law cannot be accounted for."
01. As to these alleged structured settlements, Rothstein falsified the existence of the (i) client, (ii) settlement, (iii) settlement proceeds, (iv) documents, and misappropriated the investor funds to himself and to a series of business ventures which are the alter ego of RRA, now commonly known as the RRA Entities.
01. As part of his Ponzi Scheme to defraud investors, Rothstein utilized the RRA offices, RRA lawyers and staff, and his position as an attorney and as an owner and officer of RRA, in addition to his relationship with existing clients of RRA and RRA's financial institution accounts, in order to effectuate the fraudulent sale of fictitious structured settlements.
01. Indeed, while the scheme was ongoing, RRA rapidly grew from a 7 attorney law firm in 2002 to 70 attorneys and 80 support staff in 2009. Prior to 2005, Rothstein was a virtual unknown in legal, political, and charitable circles. Subsequent to 2005, Rothstein and RRA gained the reputation of being a highly visible law firm making direct and indirect significant political and charitable contributions to both gain influence anci the appearance of a c e2 successful law firm.
01. Upon information and belief, througlL and means of RRA, Rothstein bilked investors out of an estimated to \$1.2 billion and \$1.6 billion.
01. Further, the Federal Bureau of investigation and other federal agencies have been investigating Rothstein and others, in connection with the Ponzi scheme. On November 9, 2009, the United States of America rUSA") filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem against several real properties that appear to be connected to Rothstein. United States v. Various Real Properties Purchased by or With Or On Behalf of Scott W. Rothstein, 09-cv-61780-WJZ.
01. The Forfeiture Complaint pled that the "criminal investigation has disclosed that the investments purportedly underlying the... investment scheme never existed. The investigation has established that no such settlement agreements ever existed and the entire investment scheme was a fraud." Subsequently, an Amended Forfeiture Complaint was filed by the USA.
### ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO ADLER
19. At all times material hereto, (a) RRA's corporate and trade name included Adler's and RRA held him out to the public both as a shareholder and partner. During the course of his employ at RRA, Adler performed certain management functions at the law firm.
01. From 2006 though 2009, Adler received compensation or payments from RRA in various forms, which the Trustee now seeks to recover.
01. The first set of payments the Trustee seeks to recover includes reimbursement for overpayment of Adler's base salary, bonus and/or other distributions paid by RRA.
01. In 2007, Adler's gross salary was \$317,307.59, which should have been no more than \$300,000 maximum, such that Trustee claims a 2007 compensation overpayment of \$17,307.59.
01. In 2008, Adler's gross salary was \$379,999.78 and he received a bonus or other distribution of \$425,000, which cumulatively should have been no more than \$300,000 maximum, such that Trustee claims a 2008 compensation overpayment of \$504,999.78.
01. For the first ten mouths of 2009, aftlr which RRA ceased to operate, Adler's gross salary was \$307,692.14, which should have been no more than \$250,000 maximum, such that Trustee claims a 2009 compensation overpayment of \$57,692.14.
01. The payments made to Adler for salary, bonus or other distributions are collectively referred to below as the 'Compensation Payments." The Trustee challenges the reasonableness of these Compensation Payments for each of these years, based upon various factors relevant to the operation and profitability of law firms and payment of attorney compensation. The amounts challenged as being overpayments of compensation for the 4-year period subject to this lawsuit were unreasonable and improper.
01. The second set of payments the Trustee seeks to recover includes reimbursements for payments made by RRA to Adler that were classified in RRA's financial records as "loans" and are referred to below as the "Adler Loans." The Adler Loans comprise two components, the first of which are recorded cash loan outlays to Adler in: (a) 2006 of \$25,000, (b) 2007 of \$20,000, (c) 2008 of \$65,000, all of which amounts remain unpaid, and (d) 2009 of \$110,000 which \$70,000 remains unpaid, and all are immediately due and payable with accrued interest.
01. The second component of the Adler Loans is a loan Adler negotiated between Adler and Rothstein, for Adler and his wife, Katie, to purchase a coop apartment at 290 West 11i° Street, Unit IC, New York, New York (the "Apartment"), shortly before the Ponzi Scheme was revealed. On or about August 12, 2009, \$475,000 of RRA funds paid through two Gibralter Bank cashiers checks funded the purchase of the Apartment and it was contemporaneously booked in the RRA financial records as a loan. Adler's acknowledgment that the loan debt was due RRA, he signed two documents titled, "Authorization to Deduct Money From Payroll Check For Payroll Cash Advance," copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. These authorizations total \$475,000 in payments, with one authorization in the amount of \$47,500 and a corresponding promissory note payable to RRA in that amount, attached as Exhibit C, that covered the down payment on the Apartment. The second authorization of \$427,500 paid the balance of the purchase price, but notably, Adler and his wife executed a promissory note on August 12, 2009 in favor of an entity known as RSAllth Street LLC in the amount of \$427,500, instead of in favor of RRA. Finally, at the same time that Adler and Rothstein struck their deal on Adler's loan to purchase the Apartment, Adler received a \$100,000 per year salary increase. The increase was not tied to merit, but as a means for Adler to personally acquire the Apartment for free and at RRA's expense.
01. The total unpaid amount of Adler Loans, net of all repayment checks, as of the date hereof is \$655,000. The payments described in the preceding paragraphs provided no benefit to RRA and thus, RRA received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the unpaid Adler Loans.
01. The Compensation Payments in the aggregate amount of \$579,999.51 and the unpaid Adler Loans in the aggregate amount of \$655,000 are collectively referred to below as the 'Transfers."
01. Katie Adler was the mediate transferee of the Transfer related to the Apartment. This payment for the benefit of Katie Adler provided no benefit to RRA, and thus, RRA received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for this Transfer. The Trustee only seeks to avoid as a fraudulent transfer the funds related to the Apartment.
### COUNT I - FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS PURSUANT TO SECTION S481a1M(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
31. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
01. The Transferk were made to Adler and Katie Adler within four years of the Petition Date. Those Transfers that were made between November 30, 2007 and November 30, 2009 (the "T Year Transfers") were made by RRA within two years prior to the date that the Involun \*tio was filed on November 10, 2009.
The Two Year Transfers were made by RRA to Adler and Katie Adler with the actual t tent to hinder, delay or defraud an entity to which RRA was or became, on or after the date such transfers were made, indebted.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter a Judgment:
- a. Declaring the Two Year Transfers to have been fraudulent transfers pursuant to § 548(a)( I )(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.
- b. Avoiding the Two Year Transfers made to Adler and Katie Adler as fraudulent transfers in violation of § 548(a)(l)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; and
- c. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
## COUNT H — FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 548(a)(1KB) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
- 34. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 30 achslleged as if fully restated herein. Date.
- 36. RRA received less than reasons "SA va ent value in exchange for the Two Year Transfers, and
- a. was insolvent ?S that the transfers were made or was rendered
- 35. The Two Year Transfers were made by RRAy►10 **two years prior to the Petition insolvent because of those trans**
- **b. was eigaged in business or a transaction, or was about to engage in business or a transacfjogjgr which any property remaining with RRA was an unreasonably small capital; RRA intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts that would be beyQadre ility to pay as such debts matured.**
**\\ WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court to enter an Judgment:**
- **a. Declaring the above referenced payments to Adler and Katie Adler to have been fraudulent transfers pursuant to § 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code;**
- b. Avoiding the Two Year Transfers made to Adler and Katie Adler as fraudulent transfers in violation of § 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; and
- c. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
### COUNT III - AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 544 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND SECTION 726.105(1)(a) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES
- 37. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 28 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
- 38. Within the four year period preceding the Petition Date, RRA made the Transfers to Adler and Katie Adler.
- 39. The Transfers were made by RRA wittyehe ual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors of RRA.
- 40. The Transfers may be 11 U.S.C. §544 and Fla. Stat. §726.105(1)(a).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respkC1lfly requests this Court to enter a Judgment:
- a. Declaring the above referenced payments to Adler and Katie Adler to have been fraudulent transfers pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(a); b Avoiding the Transfers made to Adler and Katie Adler as fraudulent transfers in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(a); and
- c. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
### COUNT IV - AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 544 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND SECTION 726.105(1)(b) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES
- 41. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
42. Within the four year period preceding the Petition Date, RRA made the Transfers to Adler and Katie Adler.
01. RRA made the Transfers without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Transfers, and
a. was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of RRA were unreasonably small in relation to its business or transaction; or
b. intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts that would be beyond RRA's ability to pay as they became due.
44. The Transfers may be avoided und .C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. §726. I 05(1)(b). -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully rev the Court to enter a Judgment: { t
a. Declaring the above referenced payments to Adler and Katie Adler to have been fraudulent transfers pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b);
b. Avoiding the Transfers made to Adler and Katie Adler as fraudulent transfers in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105(l)(b); and
c. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
### COUNT V — AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 544 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND SECTION 726.106(1) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES
45. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
01. Within four year period preceding the Petition Date, RRA made the Transfers to Adler and Katie Adler.
01. RRA made the Transfers without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Transfers.
01. RRA was insolvent at that times of the Transfers or became insolvent as a result of thereof, and a creditor(s) existed at the time of each of the Transfers.
01. The Transfers may be avoided under II U.S.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. §726.106(1).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a Judgment
a. Declaring the above referenced payments to the Ad lid Katie Adler to have been fraudulent transfers pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1);
b. Avoiding the Transfers made to Adler and Ctie Adler as fraudulent transfers in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1); and
c. Granting such other and furthe14/ may be just and proper.
### COUNT VI — RECOVERY OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 550 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
50. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 30 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
01. The transfers referenced above are avoidable by Plaintiff pursuant to pursuant to II U.S.C. §§ 544 and and as a result, such payments are recoverable by Plaintiff pursuant to I I U.S.C. § 5
dl r was the initial transferee of the above referenced payments and/or the entity nefit such transfers were made.
3. Katie Adler was the mediate transferee of the payments related to the Apartment for whose benefit such transfers were made.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a Judgment:
- a. Declaring Adler to be the initial transferee and/or the entity for whose benefit the above referenced payments were made;
- b. Declaring Katie Adler to be the mediate transferee and/or the entity for whose benefit the above referenced payments were made;
- c. Directing Adler to turnover the above referenced fraudulent payments, plus interest at the applicable federal statutory rate, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to the extent permissible by applicable law to Plaintiff; and
- d. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
# COUNT VII - FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
54. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
01. At all times material hereto, as an employee of RRA, having held himself out to the public as a partner of RRA and having performed certain management functions, Adler owed RRA fiduciary duties, including a duty of loyalty, which includes an obligation to account for RRA property.
01. Adler has breached his fiduciary duty by (a) effectively converting the amount of the Apartment loan to his personal own use and (b) signing documents that purport to grant a security interest in the Apartment to RSC I I" Street, LLC, instead of to RRA, which furnished the funds for the Apartment loan, (c) conspiring with Rothstein to structure the Apartment transaction by arranging a non-merit based salary increase of \$100,000 a year solely to cover the Apartment debt service, the result intended that Adler would get the Apartment for free, (d) taking purported loans from RRA, with no intention of ever repaying same, evidenced by the fact that no loan repayments were made, which is therefore a conversion of RRA funds.
01. As a result of Adler's breaches of fiduciary duty, RRA has been damaged in an approximate amount of \$1,234,999.51 plus pre judgment interest
01. At all times material hereto, Adler's actions were willful and wanton and occurred with total disregard for the rights of RRA, thus entitling RRA to an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry of a judgment in his favor and against Defendant Adler for damages, punitive damages and all such other relief as this court deems just and appropriate.
# COUNT VIII - FOR DEFAULT ON PROMISSORY NOTE
59. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 are realleged as if fully restated herein.
01. On August 12, 2009 Adler and Katie Adler executed a promissory note (the "Note") in favor of RRA in the amount of \$47 , sis.opy of which is attached as Exhibit C.
01. The Note is in default as eat d all amounts due thereunder are now due and payable.
01. The Note p 4 C;Lel 12FtA is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in collection of theNote.
01. RRA is damaged in the amount of \$47,500 plus interest, attorneys fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Adler and Katie Adler, jointly and severally, in the amount of \$47,500, plus interest attorneys fees, costs and all such other na as this Court deems just and appropriate.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualification to practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(a).
DATED this 8th day of February 2009.
BERGER SINGERMAN, P.A. Attorneys for Trustee, Herbert Stettin 350 East Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Direct Telephone: (954) 712-5 I 38 Main Line: (954) 525-9900 Facsimile: (954) 523-2872
26061461
\\z\*
By: Is/ Paul Steven Sinaerman Paul Steven Singerman, Esq. a. Bar No. 378860 pjtteerman harles H. Lichtman, Esq. a. Bar No. 501050 glichtman@bereersinuerman.com
AUTHORIZATION TO DEDUCT MONEY FROM PAYROLL CHECK FOR PAYROLL CASH ADVANCE
I, [REDACTED] S. Adler, hereby authorize Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler to deduct from my earnings twenty-four (24) equal monthly payments in the amount of \$2,213.87 to pay off FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND XX/00 (\$47,500.00) dollars at an interest rate of ELEVEN (11%) percent per annum. Said deductions will commence on the first payroll period of September 2009 through and including the first payroll period in August 2011.
\_\_\_\_\_\
Russell S. Adler
State of Florida )\
County of Broward ) SS.:
On the 12 day of August in the year 2009, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state, personally agreed [REDACTED] S. ADLER, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
Anitta Palmer\
Notary Public
(3)
1021.78\
per pay check
9/2/09\
[Signature]\
D. Booen
*3284.00*\
AUTHORIZATION TO DEDUCT MONEY FROM PAYROLL CHECK FOR PAYROLL CASH ADVANCE
I, [REDACTED] S. Adler, hereby authorize Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler to deduct from my earnings sixty (60) monthly payments in the amounts set forth on Exhibit A to pay the obligations under that certain promissory note in the principal amount of Four Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (\$427,500) attached as Exhibit B. Said deductions will complement on the first payroll period of September 2009 through and including the first payroll period of September 2014.
[REDACTED] S. Adler
State of Florida )\
County of Broward ) SS.:
On the 12 day of August in the year 2009, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state, personally agreed [REDACTED] S. ADLER, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
*NOTA*
\$2291.50
292.931.31\
÷59\
4964.93
*X [Signature]*
9/2/09\
D. Boden
### PROMISSORY NOTE
\$47,500.00 August 12, 2009
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, S. ADLER AND KATIE B. ADLER, (hereafter called "Borrower or Maker") promises to pay to the order of ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER (hereafter called "Lender") the principal sum of FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND XX/A00 (\$47,500.00) Dollars, with interest thereon, at the rate of ELEVEN (11%) percent per annum as hereinafter provided:
Commencing September 4th, 2009 and every subsequent first pay period of every calendar month for the next twenty-four (24) months, payments in the amount of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED T AND 87/100 (\$2,213.87) dollars per month. Said payments are to be deducted from S. Adler's earnings from Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. (SEE ATTACHED PAYMENT SCHEDULE ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF).
All payments of principal and/or interest shall be paid to Lender at such place as the holder hereof may from time to time designate in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender for public and private debts at the time of payments, without deduction for or on account of any present or future taxes, duties or other charges levied or imposed on this Note or the proceerls hereof, or upon the maker or holder hereof by any government, or any instrumentality, authority or political subdivision thereof.
If any payment of principal and/or interest shall not be paid within five (5) days of its due date shall be subject to a late charge equal to five (5%) percent of the amount due and at Holder's election the entire principal sum and interest at the highest legal rate per annum shall become due and payable at once without notice and demand at the option of the holder of this Note.
This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty.
The maker of this Note further waives demand, notice of non-payment, presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest and notice of extension of time of payment and consent that the payment of any installment of principal and/or interest may be extended without notice, and in case suit shall be brought for the collection hereof or the same has to be collected upon demand of any "Attorney, to pay reasonable attorneys' fees for making such collection.
Any action regarding this Note shall be brought in Broward County, Florida.
Notwithstanding any provision in this Note or in any instrument now or hereafter given to
secure this Note, the total liability for payments in the nature of interest shall not exceed the maximum rate ("Maximum Rate") permitted under the laws of the State of Florida. However, in no event shall the Maximum Rate be less than the Maximum Rate in effect as of the date of this Note.
All of the terms of this Note shall inure to the benefit of Lender and its successors and assigns and shall be binding upon Borrower and his heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, surrrssors and assigns, jointly anti severally.
Maker represents that is has had an opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel, other than Maker, and is not relying upon any other attorney or Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler in entering into this Note.
If S. Adler ceases to be an employee of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Lender may declare the entire amount due under the Note immediately due and payable. Lender is not obligated to notify Borrower or demand payment from Borrower if Lender decides to accelerate payment.
MAICEFe'S
kcUSSE S. ADLER, a natural person
State of 00(14 County of c?Th(t) a
On the day of August in the year 2009, before me, the u ed, a notary public in and for said state, personally agreed RUSSELL S. ADLE e or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual w rose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument
Notary Public
KATIE B. ADLER, a natural person
State of cfJllpia ss.: County of NM/And
On the \\ D, day of August in the year 2009, before, a notary public in and for said state, personally agreed KATIE B. ADL ersonally known or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument. %se
\~nNotary Ii \C's)icc'e
