Draft: efta02763669

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

Case No. 50-2009CA0408003OOOM3AG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,¶

v .¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFEND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT/C EXPERT WITNESS, DR. BERNARD JAN 'C l49 EY EPSTEIN'S -PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES D TO EXCLUDE HIS TESTIMONY¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffity pstein ("Epstein"), moves to strike Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradl . wards' (S") damages expert, Dr. Bernard adtgfssroq c d Jansen, and to exclude the is testimony because it does not assist the trier of fact, and states:¶

o SA¶

C¶

Edtv • 4 ( SIM A piing to Recover Damages Based on a Defamation Action¶

D f . i estations to the contrary and this Court's rulings, plans to seek damages used on a defamation action. expert confinns this and has illustrated this in both statements made to the Court and in discovery:¶

INTRODUCTION¶

• March 24. 2011: In his Case Management Statement, informed the Court that, because he had to defend against Epstein's "spurious claims," he had to endure "the public embarrassment of having been branded as a participant in one of history's largest and most notorious Ponzi schemes." (D.E. 284, p. 2.)

• • October 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011: While in his original Counterclaim filed December 21, 2009, [REDACTED] alleged that Epstein's Complaint was "nothing more than a press release" (D.E. 18, ¶ 11), in his October 4, 2011, Amended Counterclaim and November 29, 2011, Second Amended Counterclaim, he characterized it as a "highly defamatory press release." (D.E. 388, ¶ 13) (D.E. 413, ¶ 9).

• • January 6, 2012: In Answers to Interrogatories, [REDACTED] stated that: "[REDACTED] has described the special damages he has sustained and will continue to sustain in the future in his currently pending counterclaim. He has been falsely accused of immoral, unethical and illegal conduct impugning his professional integrity, his professional competence, and his fitness to practice law. Such accusations are defamatory per se and Florida law conclusively presumes the damages that inevitably arises from such defamation. The false accusations have been disseminated repeatedly throughout not only the South Florida legal community but nationally and internationally." (Ex. A, No. 1, e.s.)

In addition, in response to the interrogatory asking Edwards to explain the basis of his claim that his reputation had been injured, he simply responded, "Defamation per se." (Ex. A, No. 5, e.s.)¶

To another request, [REDACTED] responded: "Epstein's malicious, unsupported, unsupportable, false accusations of Bradley Edwards' knowing involvement and active participation in a massive Ponzi scheme singled Mr. [REDACTED] out from among all other innocent RRA employees. Those accusations were the only source falsely linking [REDACTED] [REDACTED] to Rothstein's criminal enterprise, and absent those allegations there is no basis to believe that [REDACTED] [REDACTED] impeccable professional reputation would have been tarnished by his brief employment with Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler." (Ex. A, No. 6.)¶

• • May 21, 2012 and January 9, 2013: In his Third and Fourth Amended Counterclaims, [REDACTED] continued to characterize Epstein's Complaint as a "highly defamatory press release." (D.E. 490, ¶ 9, e.s.) (D.E. 571, ¶ 9, e.s.).
• • September 25, 2017: In recent Answers to Interrogatories, [REDACTED] continued to base his claims on alleged defamatory statements: "The allegations of Epstein's maliciously filed Complaint are defamatory per se." (Ex. B, No. 35, e.s.)
• • October 10, 2017: In opposition to Epstein's Motion to Stay, [REDACTED] referenced Epstein's alleged "malicious lies": "... the poisonous effects of Epstein's malicious lies about [REDACTED] remain judicially unremedied. [REDACTED] is entitled to his day in Court to publicly prove that the scurrilous claims made by Epstein were nothing but a baseless attempt at extortion." (D.E. 1012, p. 12, e.s.)
• • November 10, 2017: [REDACTED] testified at his deposition that there "still looms this false allegation over my head." (Ex. C, p. 12, e.s.) [REDACTED] claimed that his reputation suffered damage that "unless and until a jury returns a verdict in my favor, can't be undone." (Ex. C, p. 36.)

"WEAK" - An Opinion or a Verifiable Statement of Fact?¶

In the recent hearings before this Court, has focused, in large part, on Epstein's allegation in the original Complaint that clients' cases were "weak." (D.E. 5, ¶42h.) (11/29/17 Tr. 65:22-66:3.)i ("But the fact of the matter is that was sued for ginning up, fabricating, constructing those three cases, and others, as a knowing p icipant in Florida's largest Pont scheme ...." (11/29/17 Tr. 62:21-25.) This Court co ed during dialogue with counsel that the allegations in the original Complaint said " ta i:l1¶

[T]he allegation ... in subparagraph h ... "Roths m e litigation team ... knew or should have known that th thrje filed cases were weak and had minimal value ...

¶

(11/29/17 Tr. 80:17-81:7.)¶

Epstein's allegation, however, is nothing e author's subjective belief of the S, S i titt economic value of the three civil cases. v t something is "weak" falls within the classic definition of an opinion, is not apt em of fact and, thus, is not actionable even if this was a defamation case. Zorc v. 765 So. 2d 768, 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ("'A false statement of fact is absolutely if there is to be recovery in a defamation action."). Fid. Warranty Services, Inc. > pte Ins. Holdings, Inc., 74 So. 3d 506, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("A party cannot ver fof defamation based on statements which are pure opinion.").¶

Cons there it testimony, pleadings, argument, and now damages expert, question: is attempting to "clear his name" by proving that individual allegations pled by Epstein in the original civil proceeding against were false. The cherry-picking of individual statements in one entire original civil proceeding to determine the truth or falsity of any statement is appropriate for a defamation action, not a malicious prosecution action governed by the existence of probable cause to initiate an original civil¶

Excerpts of the November 29, 2017, hearing transcript arc attached as Exhibit D.¶

proceeding. Of course, defamation for the complaint's allegations is barred by the absolute litigation privilege. Therefore, continually attempts to morph an element from the tort of defamation (whether any given statement pled by Epstein was true/false and made with good/bad motives)2 and superimpose the defamation element onto his onerous burden of proving the lack of probable cause. If allowed, this would be reversible error.¶

Expert has no Opinion on Damages¶

The error is compounded by the fact that Dr. Jansen's testimon identifying internet sources that published articles that mention "So s ed on simply and Rothstein without regard to the actual damages proximately caused by t alt 1fis prosecution (if any). in this one count malicious prosecution acts Ak i may take the position that if he has no itN, damages, i.e., $1.) Dr. Jansen's testimony is s spa to the trier of fact as required by section 90.702, Florida Statutes for either sate f d ges. y recover actual damages. ges then he is entitled to nominal¶

A¶

No Testimony Related to A ges¶

Dr. Jansen did not test t any actual proximately caused damages. expert r could not and did not op money, or even he h suffered attorneys' fees damages as a result of the original civil proceeding. n candidly admitted he had performed zero research on the impact the "d tements" had on any of the readership or what opinions were formed. Simply, Dr. Jansen offers nothing to assist the trier of fact or even support claim of damages t reputation was harmed, that has made less¶

² Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil); 405.9 Issues on Plaintiff's Claim, Defamation.¶

allowable under Florida Standard Jury Instructions 406.12 for malicious prosecution and Florida law (reasonable expenses, including lawyers' fees, injury to reputation, mental anguish).3¶

Perhaps even more compelling, Dr. Jansen's research revealed only the number of "hits" a particular publication or news media outlet on the Internet received by a reader over an average period of 30 days covering when a Rothstein article was published. (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 50.) (Ex. E.) Critically, his research did not reveal what the viewer read on a particu bsite, i.e., whether it was an article involving Rothstein, prices, or pictures fro t recent Palm Beach gala. (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 48.) (Ex. E.) Rather, Dr. Jansen t i i is calculation of the number of hits based on a day an article was published ed e daily traffic that that particular site received Id. When questioned actual day, but were an "average over a week or 1/1 ething like that...[because] you ." further, it ,m at the "hits" were not for an lic can't look at a particular date." Id. Dr. Janse • admitted that the trafficking services he used provide an average readership overtime and "[t]he exact readership numbers arc it not typically available for the indi les." Id. at 50, 49.¶

Clearly, this guesswo testi ny does not relate to actual damages when there is no article referencin thstei and concrete nexus between ' t met "hit" and someone reading or even glancing at the actual How could it when it is an "average" over time for a particular m Het website. This testimony fails to meet a basic section 90.401 relevance test.¶

³also alleges special damages of "fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family; d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities;" in his Fourth Amended Counterclaim, but these are unsupported by Florida law. (D.E. 571 at 11). See Ware v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 1442, 1471 (M.D. Fla. 1977) and Burchell v. Bechert, 356 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 4111DCA 1978).¶

Expert Testimony Unnecessary for Nominal Damages and Subject to 90.403 Balancing¶

Recognizing the missing link of actual damages in Dr. Jansen's testimony, MI' fallback damages position is that even without actual damages, he is entitled to seek the recovery of nominal damages (i.e., $1). If the recovery of nominal damages is even allowed by this Court, Dr. Jansen's testimony is prejudicial and certainly not helpful to the trier of fact. For nominal damages of $1, the "nine million hits" testimony offers nothing of assistance for¶

Rather, the inflammatory testimony is subject to a section 90.4 ng analysis. Section 90.403, Florida Statutes provides that, "Relevant evidence is le if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair u confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulati i S ." Here, even if there is any tangential relevance to Dr. Jansen's counting exerc bative value is far outweighed by the unfair prejudice of saying the words "~I n hits." In reality, Dr. Jansen cannot identify a single person who read an The only reason for to submit this testimony is to inflame e d prejudice them into thinking the nine million hits to a website equated to nine lion ple who read the Rothstein article, changed their mind and did not hire Edward w think he was engaged in a Ponzi scheme with Rothstein. But none of these co sions ere drawn by Dr. Jansen and his intemet counting.¶

Sim ds has a failure to connect the causation dots necessary to prove damages and wa e the inflammatory and irrelevant testimony of Dr. Jansen to prejudice or confuse the jury about damages. As indicated above, Dr. Jansen's testimony only counted "hits" to a publication's website, not actual readers of the article found referencing Rothstein and To allow this irrelevant, confusing, prejudicial testimony would constitute reversible error.¶

' Admissions of No Reputational Damage¶

Furthermore, has testified that he has "resurrected" any damage that was done to his reputation:¶

On August 17, 2012, counsel, Jack Scarola, made a public statement to the media which he believes was "successful in discrediting Mr. Epstein's charges." (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 62.) (Ex. E.)

¶

"With respect to reputation, I believe that over the course of the years I have done a pretty dam good job resitrielin any dam done to my reputation in this community." 5/15/1 F.) Ex.

¶

"Do I believe that right now my reputation is better th been at any time in the past, yes." 5/15/13 Tr. 41.)

¶

"I have done a good job of resurrecting my r where people initially believed, hey, whe something — this guy must be guilty #o S, 56.) (Ex. F.) m the point in time smoke there is fire or 5/15/13 Tr.

¶

"As I said then, have I done a g ( '01) 8 resurrecting whatever damage was done? Yes, I did." (Edwards/10 12/ Tr. 233.) (Ex. G.)

¶

"I have not claimed 10/10/13 mic loss as a result of my reputation." x. G.)

¶

Dr. Jansen Does Not Me ction 90.702¶

Dr. Jansen's estir n must be precluded because it has no relevance in this malicious prosecution a nly further stretches flawed defamation action not pled and not allow sen admitted that he was instructed by and his counsel to look for "defamato statements." Because expert did not testify to damages at all, his irrelevant testimony has a real danger of confusing the jury. Simply, Dr. Jansen's opinion provides no legitimate expert testimony for the jury to consider in this action. Epstein asks this Court to strike Dr. Jansen from expert witness list and preclude his trial testimony.¶

RECORD FACTS¶

On October 6, 2017, almost eight years after filing his Counterclaim, disclosed Dr. Jansen for the first time on his Sixth Amended Witness List with no explanation, as follows:¶

EXPERT:¶

159. Bernard J. Jansen, Ph.D.

(D.E. 1010.) The Court's July 20, 2017, Order Specially Setting Jury Trial required the following information at the time of listing the expert:¶

• 1. The subject matter about which the expert is expected
• 2. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the c is expected to testify;
• 3. A summary of the grounds for each opinio
• 4. A copy of any written reports issued by garding this case; and
• 5. A copy of the expert's curriculum vi

(D.E. 938.)¶

produced Dr. Jansen's 4 \ ctober 20, 2017, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit II. Dr. Jansen was taske nd to the following question:¶

9. What is the level .f diss ;motion of defaming statements associating Mr. e illegal activities o Mr. Scott Rothstein as a result of Mr. Jeffrey f ein's lawsuit against Mr.

¶

(Ex. H, p. 3, e.s.)( S,¶

Dr, J di closed that he simply calculated the number of intemet hits which aSSOCI anis with Rothstein. In focusing his analysis to "online dissemination" of the defamatory'statements, Dr. Jansen reached the following opinion:¶

15. The teaming statements associating Mr. J. with the illegal activities of Mr. Scott Rothstein as a result of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein's lawsuit against Mr. have been disseminated to at least 74 online media or other sites in 104 separate stories or articles with a combined 9,669,542 potential daily visitors since the lawsuit was filed to the date that I filed this report, inclusive.

¶

Finally, Dr. Jansen does not reference how much with the original civil proceeding. Nowhere in Dr. Jansen's report does he opine on the impact to Edw tation or character, nor does he mention shame, humiliation, mental a urt feelings. es in connection spent on¶

himself is confused about the informati r. en collected. He testified at his November 10, 2017, deposition that Dr. J it was based on quantifying the him with "derogatory and defamatory statements:. (IM 11/10/17 Tr. 28 6.) . C.) Nothing is further from the truth. number of people who had seen articles¶

Dr. Jansen testified at his • aken on December 1, 2017, that his opinion reached in this case was "that the def ato statements against Mr. [linking] into the Ponzi scheme of Mr. Rothstein isseminated to 74 different media sites, in 104 different articles, to 9,665,542 dail edia sitors." (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 6, e.s.) (Ex. E.) Dr. Jansen calculated the number and Rothstein's names were together in an article, but had no opinio g whether anyone actually read the articles or of any damages suffered by (Ex. E.)¶

In fact, Dr. Jansen conceded he performed no research into what impact, if any, the number of publications had on anyone:¶

(Ex. H, p. 5, e.s.)¶

Dr. Jansen did not even consider who was responsible for disseminating information to the press. In other words, did Epstein issue a press release? Did comment to the press? Did contact the press? Did Epstein contact the press? Simply put, who disseminated to the press the alleged defamatory statements?¶

³ Q. Okay. Did you do any research to see what 4 impact the statements had on any of the readership?¶

18 A. No.¶

(Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 64.) (Ex. E.)¶

Dr. Jansen could not even identify i( c/SCIC) ersoSowho actually read any of the publications:¶

5 A. No.¶

6 Q. Did you do any research into whether -- what 7 opinions were formed about Mr. by anyone who 8 read any of the articles?¶

9 A. No.¶

10 Q. Did you do any research into whether the 11 impact on the readership in forming an opinion abut 12 Mr. was different after Mr. Scarola 13 statements in 2012 to the press?¶

14 A. No.¶

15 Q. When you did your research did you Interview 16 any readers that actually read one 17 you cite to in your report? articles that¶

1 Q. -- right? Can yo tify one person that 2 actually read on 104 articles?¶

3 A. I didn't 1 k f X a person, so no.¶

(Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 6 St Ex. y E.)¶

Finally, al ,iSo gh t . Jansen used the term "defamatory statements" and plugged in statements p il l . him by either Mr. or Mr. Scarola, he never made any determjq o what was defamatory or not. (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 7-8.) (Ex. E.) Candidly, Dr.¶

Jansen testified:¶

15 Q. Right. So the person who made the decision to 16 label whatever statements you researched defamatory was 17 not you?¶

18 A. Whether they were defamatory or not was not my 19 decision.¶

Id. at 8. He clarified that, "I did an IT investigation. You're asking me kind of a legal question."¶

Id. Again, Dr. Jansen confirmed his opinion had nothing to do with evaluation or analysis of whether any statement was defamatory or not:¶

22 Q. Right. Okay. And so whether or not that 23 statement was defamatory or not is not an analysis you 24 engaged in?¶

25 A. The defamatory part, no.¶

Id. at 10. If the word "defaming" was removed from the task given to hi • Ag, Id not change his work of calculating the number of times he found statements rep tt g ds. Id. at 16.¶

APPLICABLE LAW Ari ^N¶

I. Litigation Privilege Precludes a Defamation Actio Aulinst Epstein¶

tic "The law has long recognized that judges A o parties, and witnesses should be absolutely exempted from liability to an actio d imatory words published in the course of proceedings regardless of how false, raief all the statements may be...." Debrincat v. Fischer, 217 So. 3d 68, 69 (Fla. claimed falsehood of any a amendments filed againstal and t .1. Because of this, Epstein cannot be sued for the pled in his original civil proceeding or any of the¶

IL g" "Original Proceedin Picked Allegations¶

the established litigation privilege, necessarily pled — but does not really wade3o try -- the tort of malicious prosecution. Although the tort of malicious prosecution has an ancient existence in the state of Florida, the elements have not changed. Compare Bros. Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. 109 So. 623, 626 (Fla. 1926) and Debrincat, supra. To prevail in a malicious prosecution action, a plaintiff must establish (1) an original civil proceeding; (2) present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding; (3) termination¶

of the original proceeding constituted a bona fide termination of that proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding; (5) malice on the part of the present defendant; and (6) damages as a result of the original proceeding. Debrincat, 217 So. 3d at 70 [e.s.].¶

Based on this longstanding Florida jurisprudence, there can be no narrow focus in this action on a single count, a hand-picked allegation, or a segregated paragraph original proceeding, or even a statement made or published in the press or on the • determine if it was false or true. Rather, this Court is bound by established law tqo hether probable cause existed for Epstein to file the "original proceeding." /1¶

I l I. Da maues in a Civil Malicious Prosecution Actio are Nut Presumed¶

"The gravamen" of a malicious prosecut. illis" ' 'is injury to character." Cate v. \ t Oldham, 450 So. 2d 224, 227 (Fla. 1984) a ous prosecution plaintiff may recover "damages to a person, property, or tion shown to have proximately resulted from a previous civil or criminal proc m Bros. Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. =, 92 Fla. 278, 288 (1926). Next, a mall secution plaintiff may recover damages for his shame, humiliation, mental angu hurt feelings. Ware v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 1442, 1471 (M.D. Ha. 199 e, humiliation, mental anguish, and hurt feelings flowing from [plaintiff's]etion . . . arc legitimate grounds for monetary relief in an action for malicious pros citation omitted). Third, a malicious prosecution plaintiff is entitled to the attorneys' fees he incurred in connection with the underlying action. See Burchell v. Bechert, 356 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (summary judgment improper where plaintiff had incurred attorneys' fees in underlying action).¶

"It is basic hombook law that, in an action for malicious prosecution, 'the plaintiff may recover all damages that are the natural and probable consequences of the action complained¶

of,' but "ItThe damages must be certain and proximate and not uncertain, contingent or speculative?" Ware v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 1442, 1470-71 (M.D. Fla. 1997)(citations omitted).¶

Moreover, unlike a criminal malicious prosecution action where a malicious prosecution for criminal prosecution can be actionable "per se," a plaintiff in a civil action must prove the damages sought. See Adler v. Segal, 108 So. 2d 773, 775 (Fla. 3d DCA prosecution action based on acquittal in underlying criminal prosecution; substantial authority that a malicious prosecution is actionable alicious that "there is `certain kinds of damage necessarily follow from the wrongful prosecution itse d ill be assumed by the law to exist .... ; citing Tidwell v. Witherspoon, 21 Fla. , Ia. 1885) ("'An accusation of crime under the forms of the law or a pretense of b ' c tts, ailty man to justice is made in the most imposing and impressive manner and 41'"c, deeper injury upon the reputation of the party accused than the same words nder any other circumstances."); see also Restatement (First) of Torts ent a. ("The institution of criminal proceedings necessarily carries with it a am accusation of criminal conduct, and the rules which determine the right to or the resulting harm to reputation and distress are the same as those applicable ' ctions or defamation ... ."); compare Burchell v. Bechert, 356 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 41° D 8Xapplying Adler's holding but dicta because court already determined dama t met by record evidence of attorneys' fees incurred in defending the lawsuits).¶

A. Dr. Jansen Failed to Provide Any Opinion on Actual Damaees in a Malicious Prosecution Action¶

The Florida cases cited in Section III outline the damages allowed in a civil malicious prosecution action. Dr. Jansen failed to opine on my of these categories. Significantly, Dr. Jansen offered no opinion on rcputational injury because he had no knowledge regarding whether there was any impact on the readership in forming an opinion about (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 64.) (Ex. E.) Likewise, he offered no opinion regarding whether the original civil proceeding caused shame, humiliation, mental anguish, and hurt feelings. He had no opinion of harm to reputation, loss of business, client departures, or any other category of potential damage. Finally, Dr. Jansen certainly had no opinion regarding incurring attorneys' fees.¶

Rather, Dr. Jansen performed, in his own words, an "IT investiga by intemet searches how many times the statements given to him 114,1y calculating or his counsel appeared. (Jansen's 12/1/17 Tr. 8.) (Ex. K) This fails to E s' burden of proving malicious prosecution damages and provides no testimon iejp the trier of fact.¶

B. Dr.Jansen's Testimony Fails to Assist t Fact — if Allowed to Consider - Nominal Dwnages in a Malicious Pr s on Action¶

;, Epstein by no means abandons his itio to argument of nominal damages in a malicious prosecution action. e Florida Standard Jury Instructions confirm Epstein's position that while " • " ages are awardable in a defamation action (405.10 f)°, they simply do not exist in icious prosecution action (406.12). However, Epstein points out that if this Co allo s t is argument to be presented to the jury, Dr. Jansen provides no helpful testim or nions — none are needed for nominal damages. Epstein will be unfairly prejudic arils is allowed to present "expert" evidence concerning the number of potential itors to a website in order to establish nominal damages under section 90.403, Florida Statutes.¶

⁴ If you find for (claimant) but fmd that no [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] has been proved, you [should] [may] award nominal damages. Nominal damages are damages of an inconsequential amount which are awarded to vindicate a right where a wrong is established but no damage is proved.¶

IV. Section 90.702, Florida Statutes Governs Expert Witness Testimony and Dr. Jansen Fails to Meet the Threshold Requirement of Assisting the Trier of Fact or Determining a Fact in Issue¶

A trial court has wide discretion in determining which matters are proper subjects of expert opinion testimony. v. Buerman, 739 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla. 41h DCA 1999). However, that discretion is not without limits. Nathanson v. Houss, 717 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a mat ct and is generally admissible. §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2017). The concept of.n, is included within the section 90.401 definition of relevancy; the evidence must material fact." Jordan cc rel. Shealey v. Masters, 821 So. 2 When evidence is offered to prove a fact which is r in issue, it is said to be immaterial. /d. Finally, "[r]elevant evidence is inad i SSe, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejud* ( ,*lion o of issues, misleading the Jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evi ." .403, Fla. Stat. (2017). ve or disprove a (Fla. 4'h DCA 2002).¶

submits Dr. Jan mages" expert. However, Dr. Jansen fails to assist the trier of fact in understan evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a threshold r requirement for expert t ' py to be admissible. See § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2017). Even if qualified in his of exp rtise, for an expert's opinion to be admissible, it must tend to prove or disprove in dispute. Unless Dr. Jansen's opinion is relevant to a fact or issue in the case, it tnissible. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Mitzel, 83 So. 3d 865, 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)("As a threshold matter, the expert's opinion must be relevant, that is, the evidence must prove or tend to prove a fact in issue."). Providing no opinions regarding actual or nominal damages, Dr. Jansen must be stricken as a witness and his testimony precluded.¶

CONCLUSION¶

has no actual damages. That is why he wants to try a per se defamation action. However, the litigation privilege is absolute and bars a defamation suit. Here, tried to use Dr. Jansen to say reputation has been harmed by "defamatory statements" that he found on the intemet, yet he could not opine if the statements were in fact "defamatory." He wants to put before the jury that nine million viewers all thought horrible things yet he could not say who disseminated the alleged defamatory statem 'portantly, Dr. Jansen cannot opine if anyone read the articles, or if the publice y impact on the readership in forming an opinion about or if the ' es any compensable damages. Clearly, Dr. Jansen has no relevant testimony t o e helpful to the trier of fact. Therefore, Epstein respectfully requests that this C s e report and exclude Dr. Jansen's testimony.¶

CiC)* —

¶

r ?Se IN II PIIIr¶

'....)¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on January 9, 2018, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(bX1).¶

LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suifk 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 727-3600; (561) 727-3601

¶

By. / L nk¶

Scott J. Link (FBN Kara Berard Rocken Angela M. M Primary: S Primary: Prim S BN 44903) B 80) ocklaw.com rocklaw.corn inkrocklaw.com Eservice@linkrocklaw.com¶

Co unsel for Plaintiffi'Counter-Defendant law ffrey Epstein¶

s 4 RVICE LIST¶

Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, 2139 Palm Beach s B lebard West Palm Beac 334 9 mepOsearcylpv.com jsxasearcvlai.v.com scarolateamOsearcylaw.com Co-Co Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff J. wards & Shipley, P.A.¶

Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 njsf4FLAppellateLaw.com kbt@,FLAppellateLaw.com endant/Counter-Plaintiff J.¶

J. Marc S. Nurik Pottinger LW 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 brad@eplIc.com staftefile®pathtojustice.com Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Co-Counsel or J.¶

Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 marc®nuriklaw.com¶

Jack A. Goldberger 250 Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 jgoldberger@agwpa.com smahonev®aewpa.com Co-Counsel for PlaintiffiCounter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

,1OAlk¶

CO¶

...agia.¶

EXHIBIT A¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

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

CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff(s),¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually, and
L.M., individually,¶

Defendant(s).
_____/¶

NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD SET
OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
[REDACTED] J. EDWARDS¶

COMES NOW the Defendant/Counterplaintiff, Bradley J. [REDACTED], by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby files this Notice with the Court that Answers to Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, on December 9, 2011, have been furnished to the attorney for the Plaintiff.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Fax and U.S. Mail this 6/7 day of January, 2012 to all counsel on the attached list.¶

JACK SCAROLA
Florida Bar No.: 169440¶

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard¶

West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

Phone: (561) 686-6300¶

Fax: (561) 383-9451¶

Attorney for Bradley J. [REDACTED]¶

[REDACTED]'s adv. Epstein¶

Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXXMBAG¶

Answers to Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories to [REDACTED]¶

COUNSEL LIST¶

Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire
Attorbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-659-8300
Fax: (561)-835-8691
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Eistos & Lehrman; PL
425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820
Fax: (954)-524-2822¶

[REDACTED] L. Ackerman, Jr., Esquire
Fowler White Burnett, P.A.
901 [REDACTED] Point West
777 S Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6170
Phone: (561)-802-9044
Fax: (561)-802-9976
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Marc S. Nurik, Esquire
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-745-5849
Fax: (954)-745-3556
Attorneys for Scott Rothstein¶

C)¶

ANSWERS TO PLAIN ' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TOSS Ala¶

t. Identify each:and every fact that supports the allegations set forth in your Second Amended Counterclaim, by providing:¶

U¶

• a. a detailed description'of the damages yon allege you:have sufferedincluding, but not limited to, those you claim have resulted in injury to your reputation, and .(2) interference in your professional relati
• b. a detailed description of the`special.damagesyd4lJlege that you have suffered, including, but not limited to:
  • (I) the loss of the value o rri .diverted.from your professional responsibilities, and
  • (2) the cost older? lc"'ng claims against you in this lawsuit.

ANSWER:¶

• The identification of "e ay fact hat supports" specific allegations.would require the, disclosure of the mental i ions and thought processes of counsel and is apcorcai by the work-p uct pnvilege. Subject to add.without waiving that priVilege, has described th ial damage's he has sustained and will continue to sustain in the future in his tlY pen g counterclaim. (He has been falsely accused of immoral, unethical) Illegal conductkpugning his rofessional integrity, his professional competence, annis fitness to practice la" (Such accusations are defamatory_per se and Florida law conclusively, (presumes the damoe that inevitably arises from such defamation. (The false accusati&rchlile) (been dissenHated repeatedly throughout not only the South Florida legal community but) (nationallytZ international v.¶

In addition, has been obliged to divert time, effort, and attention from. the productive•prictice of his profession to defend against the tortuous misconduct of Epstein. Every minute diverted from his professional pursuits impeded his ability to advance the claims: and interests bf existing clients and precluded him from undertaking other and additional responsibilities. Tiine records made.available in rcs ipstein's Request to Produce.detail (at a minimum) the extent of the diversion Mr. has suffered. Cost invoices for expenditures incurred in,defencling against gpstein's misconduct have also been made available¶

in response to Epstein's Request to Produce. Those damages are ongoing and continuing in nature.¶

2. Explain in detail how your reputation has been. injured as a direct result: of this action against you from the filing of this action to the present. With specificity;: identify the • following:

• a. Your alleged reputation prior to the filing of this action;
• b. My and all persons who have made statements about your r after the filing of this actioni•
• c. Any and all communications, whether verbal or wri about, your le.Mitation; and
• d. The date, manner, and substance of .communicatio r in ch.said statements .have been made about your reputation.

ANSWER:¶

See above.¶

• a. .Excellent
• b. None are presently known excepE%ps nand his numerous lawyers incl., attorneys presently engaged in advapp4ng Epstein's malicious prosecution o and his extortionate abuse o
• e. See 2b above.
• d. See the pleadings, .film %n-the-record statements 'made in this case and the RRAbankruptcy

3. .Exp foal,tail how the 'filing ; of this action against you has interfered with your .professional rela ms. and for each such relationship:

• a. its nature and-the.person with whom you have or had the relationship; b_ ify exactly how the relationship has been interfered with; entify eibltpeiten with knowledge of the interference;. and 'identify actual damages as a result of such interference.:

ANSWER:¶

See answer to #1 above. Persona With knowledge of the interference ineltalp the parties to this action, all present and prior attorneys of record, all persons on the certificate of: service of Epstein's Motion. to Depose .Rothstein filed in the RRA banlauptcy proceedings; all attorneys, judges, and observers in Court 'on every occasion that¶

i¶

() argument has been presented in support of Epstein's spurious claims ag, all persons exposed to media coverage of Epstein's spurious claims against¶

Actual damages sustained ba include:.¶

• the costs incurred in defending against Epstein's outrageous misconduct;
• the value oa' diverted time and attenliali.
• the value of compensation for the injury to a' professional reputation as liquidated by a jury.

4. Identify each and every witness that has knowledge of the damages you seek to recover in this action, including but not limited to your employer, your partners, your family members, associates, colleagues, referral sources, end clients and, for each, describe the nature of his or her knowledge.

ANSWER:¶

)' Steve Jaffe, Gary =, Seth Lehrman have knowledge of the extent to which ' tim nd attention were diverted by Epstein from gainful professional pursuits, ' professional reputation, competence, integrity, and character.¶

Former Federal Judge Paul Cassell has knowledge of the same matters described above. Earleen Cote, Esq. has knowledge of the same matters described above.¶

5. W2iplairThe basis for your claim that your reputation has been injured by) egations against you in this actio—ni.

ANSWER:¶

051ibmation per sc.)¶

6. Explain the method by which you have distinguished injury to your reputation resulting directly from allegations against you in this action from injury to your reputation resulting from your having been a partner it he defunct firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler.

ANSWER:¶

Wpstem's malicious, unsupported, unsupportable, false accusations of (knowing involvement and active participation in a massive Ponzi scheme singled Mr:¶

art from among all other innocent RRA employees. Those accusations_were.thel ^ply source falsely linking Bradley Edwards to Rothstein's criminal enterprise,_and) allegations is 17ibasis to believe that EdwardsLimpecciti@ rofessional reputation would have been tarnished by is_ netemployment_with (Irelh-gfaiRosenfelarrAilE) Indeed, the vast majority of RRA employees were presumed innocent and have escaped any taint from their employment with the firm.¶

7. Identify all fees and costs that you have incurred for thet nse of this action against you.

ANSWER:¶

See MI contemporaneous production. cos¶

8. If you have awritten engagement agreement with the firm of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. describe the date of the agreement, the scope of services and the terms on which your counsel are epmpensated.

ANSWER:¶

i See • S<atieC\ contemporane pr tion.¶

9. If you do norha written engagement agieement with the firm of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., describe the terms of your oral representation agrecme t, the scope of services and the terms on which your counsel arc to be compensated.

ANSWER:¶

N/A ec,¶

10. Identify any other attorney and firm with whom you have any relationship in connection with your defense of this action.

ANSWER:¶

None¶

fl¶

0¶

U¶

11. If you (or another on your behalf) have paid any legal fees and costs incurred for the defense of this action, provide the amounts paid and the date of each payment.

ANSWER:.¶

See Mi contemporaneous production.¶

12. State, by week or month, the amount of hours that you devoted to your professional work since the filing of this action against you (in 2009, 2010 and 2011) and describe in detail the source of this information (e.g., time sheets, pe rcadiary, i...) manual or II computer calendar). ANSWER: ) ANSWER: ANSWER: privacy.

Unknown, although estimates that in the ordinary course of his work he devotes approximately 60 hours per week to profesaiQ t activities. This total regularly increases immediately prior to and during trials. : 13. State, by week or month, theln-Sint of hours that you have devoted to your professional work during the two years prior to.the filing of this action against you (in 2007 and 2008) and describe in detail the so thisinfonnation (e.g., time sheets, personal diary, manual or computer calendar).¶

Unknown, although Bradley estimates that in the ordinary course of his work he devotes approximately 60 hours per week to professional. activities. This total regularly increases immediately prior to and during trials.¶

14. .State the amount of gross income that you received from providing services as a lawyer for each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and identify the source of that income (including the payor of the same).

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably ca a to the discovery of admissible evidence and an unwarranted invasion of right to economic¶

15. State the amount of gross income that you received from the provision of goods or services other than while acting as a lawyer for each of the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and identify the source of that income (including the payor of the same).

ANSWER:¶

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and an unwarranted invasion of [REDACTED] right to economic privacy.¶

16. State the amount of hours that you have devoted to pro bono work for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and substantiate your answer with the names of the cases or causes for which you provided such service.

ANSWER:¶

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¶

17. You claim damages for emotional distress, embarrassment, and mental anguish as a result of this action against you. Have you sought professional medical or psychological services? If so,

• a. identify each provider of such services;
• b. state the dates during which you received treatment or assistance for such services; and
• c. state the amount of money you have paid for such services.

ANSWER:¶

No.¶

18. If you have not sought professional medical or psychological services, please explain why.

ANSWER:¶

I have managed to deal with the emotional and psychological stress without professional assistance and have preferred to avoid the potential stigma that sometimes attaches to treatment for emotional and psychological issues.¶

0¶

U¶

19. If you claim to have suffered any loss of income, wages, or, other remuneration as a result of the claims made against you in this action, describe in detail

• •
• a. the nature of the lost income, whether by wages or other remuneration (e.g., loss of clients, loss of earnings for hours engaged in the practice of law, etc.); b the amount of lost income, whether by wages or other remuneration, for each period for which you typically receive the above (e.g., if you bill or otherwise keep track of legal services you provide by the hour, the number of hours which you were unable 'to perform such services for each month) since the filing of this action;
• c. the duration of the hiss, i.e., the date the loss commenced and concluded; d.. the basis for determining the loss, i.e., identify the specific client and matter; and
• e. the methpd used in calculating your loss of income, whether by wages or other remuneration, for the period you have claim to have suffered damages.

ANSWER:¶

See Bradley Edwards' contemporaneous production.¶

20. If you are claiing that you have suffered loss of future earning capacity as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct, describe with specificity:

• a. the duration of the lost future earning capacity;
• b. the amount of the lost future earning capacity, and
• c. the basis for your calculation.

ANSWER:¶

Undetermined at this time;¶

21. If you are claiming to have lost business or employment opportunities as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the plaintiff, describe each with specificity and, for each, state the amount of money damages you seek to recover.

ANSWER:¶

Undetermined at this time.¶

22. Describe the method used in calculating your loss of future earn

N/A¶

ANSWER:¶

C 23. With respect to each alleged lost business ty, please state for each the following:¶

• a. the name and address of thd'e r, client, attorney or entity who offered or presented the businesi opportunity that you claim was lost;
• b. the nature and scope of workinvolved in the lost business opportunity;
• c. . the amount of compensation or remuneration you estimated that you would earn or be paid had you undertaken the opportunity and the basis for that estimation; and
• d. the date you determined that you had lost the business opportunity.

ANSWER:¶

N/A¶

24. State each instance in which you have spoken to or communicated with the press or any other media representative relating to Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein. Provide the identity of each contact, the date of the contact, and a description of the communication.

ANSWER:¶

Objection. Attorney work product privilege except to the extent that is identified as a source of information in published reports which are as easily aval a litiic Rrey Epstein as to through intemet searches.¶

tc ) 25. Identify the confidential source(s) listed on your Privilege Log in this case dated February 23, 2011.¶

ANSWER:¶

Objection. Attorney-work product.¶

26. Identify the legal basis for including a confidential source in your pzivilege Log.

ANSWER:¶

Attorney work product privilege C OS¶

(Th 27. Provide an explanation for your belief that law enforcement is still investigating the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Identify contacts with govemment/law enforcement, media, other attorneys, or anyone else froin.which you claim to form this belief, including the names, dates, substance of communication, etc.¶

0 ANSWER: ->¶

Objection. Attorney work-product statutorily restricted communications with law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. Irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. .¶

28. 'Identify the basis for your claim that others still persist in prosecuting claims against the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Jeffrey Epstein. Identify the persons still prosecuting claims against the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant or with knowledge of the persons still prosecuting claims against him, including names, datcs of contact with such persons, substance of communication, etc.

ANSWER:¶

Objection. Attorney work-product and statutorily restricted communications with law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. Irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¶

29. Provide support for your claims in Paragraphs 9 and 25 of the Second Amended Counterclaim in which you allege the sole purpose of filing civil claims was never to recover monetary damages, that Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Jeffrey Epstein knew he never suffered monetary damages, that he knowingly asserted baseless and unsupportable claims, etc.

ANSWER:.¶

Sea ' Motion for Summary Judgment and attachments.¶

30. Identify all clients and list all payments made to clients i O 143la'on with their cases against the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein.

ANSWER:¶

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated :to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, to the extent deemed relevant, since Epstein directly settled the claims and made the payments, the information requested i§readily available to him.¶

31. Identify all third parties (non-clients) who received or made payments in connection with the client cases or purported client cases against the Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Jeffrey Epstein and*with specificity: (I) explain the relationship of such third parties; (2) list the payments made to or by each; and (3) list thedate of payments and purpose of payments. Your answer should include without limitation all investigators, witnesses, referring persons, referring attorneys, outside counsel, outside experts. It should also include any and all payments made to or by investors in any of the client cases against the Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Jeffrey Epstein or payments made by or to any other person in connection with the client cases.

• ANSWER:¶

Objection. Irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¶

32. Identify all attorneys who worked on the client cases against Plajntiff/CounterDefendant Jeffrey Epstein, includi at Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler; the attorneys at not limited to, the., formerly Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, PL; outside attorneys and referring attorneys.

ANSWER:¶

M, Paul Cassell, Matt Weissing, Steve Jaffe ril Berger rendered'substantive services in the prosecution of claims against Jeffrey Epstein. Adler waa,in attendance at multiple depositions but was not an active participant.¶

33. Identify all members of support staff, paralegals, secretaries, investigators, etc. who worked on client c c a nst the Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to offices t e attorneys formerly at Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler; the office of UJaffe, Weissing, Fistos B7Lelnman, PL; and offices of outside attorneys and referring attorneys.

ANSWER:¶

Shawn Gilbert, attic Black, Jacquie Jol illiamson, Susan Sterling, Mike Fisten, Pat Pat¶

34. Identify any agreethents, proposals, offers, discussions, negotiations, etc. related to the sale or development of any movie, book, or other rights or similar deals.

ANSWER:¶

None¶

0¶

U¶

[Handwritten signature]
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS¶

STATE OF FLORIDA )
PALM BEACH
COUNTY OF BROWARD. )¶

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 6th day of January, 2012
by [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], who is personally known to me or who has produced.
_____ (type of identification) as identification and who did/did
not take an oath.¶

[Handwritten signature]¶

Notary Public
State of Florida at Large
My Commission expires:
Commission No:¶

¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

EXHIBIT B¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

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

CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XMCMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff(s),¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually,¶

J. L.M., individually, individually, and Defendant(s). Co¶

NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO114ERROGATORIES¶

J. by and through his undd ee₹ssiig \i", counsel, hereby files this Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories with the Corkpropounded by Jeffrey Epstein on September 5, 2017, and said Answers to Interrogato . es,ve been furnished to the attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY tilt a, to all Counsel on the attached list7flis e and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve `511" day of ,..C.tolPe.e' , 2017.¶

AROLA¶

Florida Bar No.: 16944¶

Attorney E-Mail(s): jsx@searcylaw.com; and mmccann@searcylaw.com¶

Primary E-Mail: _searolateam@searcylaw.com¶

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard¶

West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

Phone: (561) 686-6300¶

Fax: 561-3 1n51 3-¶

Attorneys for J.¶

U¶

35. Please describe with particularity any and all evidence, circumstances and events upon which you rely in asserting that your reputation was damaged as alleged in your Counterclaim, including, without limitation, specifically describing how that damage is attributable to Epstein's lawsuit against you.

RESPONSE: (The allegations of Epstein's maliciously filed Complaint are defamatory per se.)¶

36. Please explain in detail the amount of time required to be diverted from your professional responsibilities including, but not limited to, the time lost, each date on which the time was lost, the case/matter on which you would have otherwise spent the time, your billable hourly rate, if any, you allege to have lost, and for each case/matter identified, please provide the amount of income derived by you, your firm, or any entity acting on your behalf in that matter. Please detail all other evidence, methods and calculations on which you intend to rely to quantify the damages you claim are attributable to time diverted from your professional responsibilities as alleged in your Counterclaim.

RESPONSE: Time diverted from Bradley [REDACTED] professional responsibilities is reflected in previously produced time records and will be updated prior to the expiration of discovery. Counter-Plaintiff, however, objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the number of interrogatories propounded by the Counter-Defendant, including subparts, substantially exceeds the maximum number permitted without leave of court.¶

37. For each payment or distribution made by you, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Alder, [REDACTED] Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED] Fistos & Lehrman PL and/or any other law firm through which you have provided legal services and/or any other lawyer and/or law firm to Beth Williamson in connection with any claims asserted against Jeffrey Epstein state, identify, and describe the amount of the payment, the date of payment, the source of the payment proceeds, the reasons for the payment, and any promises, contracts, agreements, understandings and arrangements regarding said payment, and all amendments, modifications and supplements of the same, pursuant to which such payment was made.

RESPONSE: Objection: The information sought is not relevant, material or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory seeks to invade the economic privacy of the Counter-Plaintiff and all others encompassed within the extraordinarily broad scope of Definition #5 of Counter-Defendant's Interrogatories. Reference to "the period in question" is vague and ambiguous.¶

Signature of Answering Party¶

STATE OF )¶

COUNTY OF )¶

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28^th day of
September, 2017 by Brad Edwards who is personally known to me or
who has produced _____ (type of identification) as identification
and who did/did not take an oath.¶

¶

EXHIBIT C¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

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

Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

VS.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; , individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.¶

VOLUAt,¶

VIDEOTPA& SITION¶

LEY¶

C :Iren on Behalf of Plaintiff¶

O¶

Friday, November 10th, 2017 10:02 a.m. - 6:16 p.m. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard .T West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

,'";¶

Examination of the witness taken before¶

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

1 2 A Just an anxious feeling to get this over with.¶

3 4 5 Q And you had that anxious feeling every single day from December 2009 through today November 10th, 2017?¶

6 C) 0 A (The)(more) reminders utjit). sa) (have) (they (arid) (th-e) (frd•t) (that)(there)( CM)(looms (this) fats (allegation (ove r) that is (clTTETV)¶

9 10 • You said it looms this false ation. What is the false allegation loomi er your head?¶

11 12 13 14 A That I was a partici • a Ponzi scheme with one of the individuals ght be the most S hated person in South F a, especially amongst our profession.¶

15 4 Mr.¶

16 A Rig Ro0)97.7.'¶

17 18 19 Q ut why is there an allegation hanging over your he case against you was dismissed in 20 ect?¶

20 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Which case?¶

21 y MR. LINK:¶

22 23 Q The case against you by Mr. Epstein was dismissed in 2012, was it not?¶

24 A Right. The case was dismissed.¶

25 Q Five years ago the case was dismissed, 1 that those things are not true.¶

2 3 4 The lawyers i practice with know that those things are not true It's the rest of the world that --¶

6 8 9 10 11 12 (170 A Your reputation is made up of what soc'e y thinks of you. The people who don't know me i on y got a snapshot of this person -- is Rothst co-conspirator in a Ponzi scheme and co e to spread that message from that point in ti rward, whether it's 9 million people or 100 m eople, my reputation right there suff ges that, gmam) (araxnmoury Eft@EatETIWeoP7) @Mturouie).¶

15 16 17 18 Q So the r he nameless, faceless folks that you don kno that you have never met, never had cone ations with, never interacted with, who are --c hat ave impacted your reputation.¶

19 l y Your question is way too extreme.¶

20 21 So you told me it's anyone who knows you, knows for sure that there's nothing --¶

22 A I didn't tell you that.¶

23 Q You didn't?¶

24 A No. Who knows me well.¶

25 Q They have to know you well, right?¶

Q II, okay.¶

1 testimony.¶

2 Q I understand. He's the only one that
3 complied with the disclosure rules and has a report,
4 but the rest are listed as under the actual expert
5 witness section.¶

6 A I hear you.¶

7 Q So in looking at -- do you have the report
8 in front of you, which we just marked as Exhibit 22
9 for Bernard Jansen, PhD?¶

10 A Yeah.¶

11 Q When was Mr. Jansen retained?¶

12 A I don't know.¶

13 Q Your counterclaim has been pending since
14 December 2009, correct?¶

15 A Yes.¶

16 Q Do you know why Mr. Jansen did not provide
17 a report until 2017?¶

18 A Don't know.¶

19 Q Do you know why Mr. Jansen was not listed
20 on any exhibit list from the beginning of the case --
21 the first -- I think it was five -- maybe five or six
22 witness list to the court?¶

23 A (with certainty) (I) (don't) (know) (I) (know) (the)
(24) (types) (of) (things) (he) (does) (And) (typically) (his) (report) (is)
(25) (most) (useful) (right) (before) (trial) (because) (it) (is) (a)¶

1           (quantification of the number of people who have seen
2           (the articles associated (-- depending on the type of
3           (lawsuit in which he's testifying (-- with the derogatory
4           (and defamatory statements, so --¶

5           Q          Dr. Jansen --¶

6                   MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm sorry.¶

7                   You interrupted Mr. [REDACTED].¶

8           BY MR. LINK:¶

9           Q          Did I, Mr. [REDACTED]?¶

10           A          Yes. I was almost finish, though.¶

11                   So his report can't be completed until --
12           well, you want it to be complete as close up to the
13           trial as possible so that you can have the final
14           numbers.¶

15           Q          I understand you can update reports. But
16           you could have retained him at any time, because
17           there were other trial settings and there would have
18           been a witness list, right?¶

19           A          Well, we have been on appeal for a while,
20           but --¶

21          Q          I understand. But you've had five trial
22           settings.¶

23                   In any event, you have used Mr. Jansen
24           before, correct?¶

25          A          I have used Mr. Jansen before. As a¶

EXHIBIT D¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

L¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

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

Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, individually, CO S¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.¶

TRANSCRIPT OF SINGS¶

DATE TAKEN: ay, November 29th, 2017¶

TIME: a.m. - 3:55 p.m.¶

PLACE . Dixie Highway, Room 10C¶

t Palm Beach, Florida¶

BEFORE: onald Hafele, Presiding Judge¶

This case came on to be heard at the time and place afores when and where the following proceedings were rept)¶

Sonja D.¶

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

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Mr. Epstein?¶

MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct.¶

THE COURT: Mr. Scarola, thank you for your patience. You may proceed, sir.¶

Thank you, Ms. Rockenbach and Mr. Link, for your written and oral presentations.¶

MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, YoMR' Honor. If you don't mind, I'm going to O stand at the podium that says, Plain iff¶

Your Honor, there is a ver f damental disagreement between presen --1 for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edw ou heard Mr. Link say -- and k I took down the quote exactly -- e never challenged that these t es were legitimate cases.¶

can understand why it is that is point in the litigation, Mr. Link r es that they had never challenged that A;"these three cases were legitimate cases.¶

(But the fact of the matter is that)¶

was sued for ginning upaj (fabricating, constructing those three cases, (and others, as a knowing participant in) (Florida's largest ever Ponzi scheme\ that¶

to interrogatories in the state court matters, E.W. and L.M., and listed additional high-profile witnesses that would allegedly be called at trial, including, but not limited to:" And then various individuals are identified.¶

And then paragraph 41. The sole purpose of the scheduling of these (:: depositions was, again, to pump up t ICe'c ses to investors. There is no evi. Alto date that any of these individua r have Akst -lic e any knowledge regarding 's ivil actions." \¶

THE COURT: e record, that's a quote from pj ap 41, as opposed to argument.¶

MR 'tIOAROLA: Thank you. Sir. I'm sctS,¶

0 If we go to page 18 of the complaint, ubparagraph H. "Rothstein" and again, this is a quote.¶

÷s¶

("Rothstein and the litigation team knew) or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for (the following reasons.")¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25¶

Those reasons are listed.¶

(Again, Questioning the legitimacy o0¶

(Ehe claims.¶

Page 21, paragraph 44. "The actions described in paragraph 42 above herein had no legitimate purpose in pursuing the civil" litigations (sic) "against Epstein, but rather were meant to further the fraudu scheme and criminal activity of Roth¶

Paragraph 46, the last li RRA and the attorneys in the civil¶

Please remember, th action is a defined term in the . It's L.M., E.W. and Jane Do claims -- "needed to create a fic t t included extraordinary damages. a r, the actual facts behind her act ould never support such ordinary damages."¶

0 Going down to the last sentence in s ubparagraph A. "Under the circumstances, her claim for damages against Epstein, one of L.M.'s many johns during that same period, would be so incredible and certainly not likely to produce the extraordinary settlements promised to RRA's investors."¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

hear what Mr. Link is trying to suggest so that you can formulate your argument.¶

MR. SCAROLA: I know exactly --¶

THE COURT: I will give him a minute.¶

MR. LINK: I don't want to take long.¶

said I just want to clarify, because Mr. Scarola that we have conceded that nothing waS fabricated.¶

0 What was fabricated was not the fil ng of the three lawsuits in 2008. as that there were other claims in to those three, and that one of ree settled for 30 million, and at r. Epstein had offered $200 mil hose are the things that we were4 about during that time period. C¶

THE COURT: (Well, the allegation,)¶

(t drugh, in subparagraph H, which was already) read into the record -- I will read it)¶

( Lt¶

ain, quote, Rothstein and the litigation)¶

team -- parenthetically Mr. Scarola has¶

(a_iggested that the litigation team is)¶

defined as Mr. -- returning to the¶

quoted provisions -- knew or should have)¶

2¶

3¶

4¶

5¶

6¶

7¶

8¶

9¶

10¶

11¶

12¶

13¶

14¶

15¶

16¶

17¶

18¶

19¶

20¶

21¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

and had minimal value -- and for the reasons¶

(I have already_gone through in addressing)¶

(What I think is going to be relevant as to)¶

those three individuals if the contention is¶

(still that these claims were not legitimate)¶

(during the period of time that Mr. Rothsteirj¶

ad Mr. worked to ether). •¶

MR. LINK: I just want to make thi AS'¶

C2) distinction. I don't want to beat this¶

horse too much. If you look a¶

paragraph before that parag talks¶

about the $500 million¶

THE COURT: ke that in¶

consideration.¶

MR. L it's relative to that.¶

Second r Honor --¶

OLA: I'm sorry. I would like,¶

e few minutes remaining, to be able to¶

some points before --¶

THE COURT: Mr. Link, I am going to ask¶

you, then, to save your commentary for¶

rebuttal.¶

MR. LINK: I just was trying to answer¶

your questions.¶

EXHIBIT E¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

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

CASE NO.: 50-2009CA040 800XXXXXXBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
and [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED],
individually,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN
Taken on Behalf of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff¶

DATE TAKEN: Friday, December 1, 2017
TIME: 9:23 a.m. - 11:21 a.m.
PLACE: Law Offices of [REDACTED] Pottinger, LLC
425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301¶

Examination of the witness taken before:¶

Iliana Lugo, Court Reporter
Palm Beach Reporting
1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 1001
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

APPEARANCES¶

For the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant:¶

LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A.
BY: SCOTT J. LINK, ESQ.
KARA B. ROCKENBACH, ESQ.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

For the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff:
SEARCY, DENNY, SCAROLA, BARNHART
& SHIPLEY, P.A.
BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ.
7139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

Also Present:¶

ROBERT BARFIELD, Videographer, Visual Evidence¶

[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff¶

---

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is the 1st day of December 2017. The time is 9:23 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Doctor Bernard Jansen in the matter of Epstein versus Rothstein and [REDACTED]. This deposition is being held at 425 North Andrews Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.¶

My name is Robert Barfield. I'm the videographer from Visual Evidence, Inc.¶

Would the attorneys please announce their appearances for the record?¶

MR. LINK: Yes.¶

MR. SCAROLA: My name is Jack Scarola. I'm counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff, [REDACTED]. And Mr. [REDACTED] is also present.¶

MR. LINK: Scott Link and [REDACTED] behalf of Mr. Epstein.¶

(Thereupon, Doctor Bernard J. Jansen was duly awarn.)¶

MR. SCAROLA: I'm going to offer a stipulation to you. And that is that rather than go through the details of the witness' background, training, and experience, we would agree that his curriculum vitae will be marked as an exhibit to this deposition and any portions of it may be read by¶

1 either party as if those entries in the CV were
2 responsive to appropriate questions during the
3 course of the deposition.¶

4 MR. LINK: That's acceptable.
5 MR. SCAROLA: Good. Thank you.
6 MR. LINK: Shall we go ahead and mark that as
7 Exhibit 17?¶

8 MR. SCAROLA: That's a good idea.
9 (Thereupon, the document referred to was
10 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 for identification.)
11 THEREUPON:¶

12 DOCTOR BERNARD J. JANSEN
13 was called as a witness and, having been previously duly
14 sworn and responded "I do," was examined and testified
15 as follows:¶

16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. LINK:¶

18 Q. Mr. Jansen, would you please take a look at
19 what we just marked as Exhibit 1 and tell us what that
20 is, please.¶

21 A. This is my CV, my curriculum vitae.
22 Q. And is that current through today?
23 A. I could check every page but it's a fairly
24 recent CV.¶

25 Q. Okay. Mr. Jansen, tell me what your opinions¶

1 are that you have reached in this case.¶

2 (A) (The my opinion is that the defamatory)
3 (Statement against McEdwards leaking into the Ponzi)
4 (Scheme of McRothstein were disseminated in 174)
5 (Ifferent media sites in 104 Ifferent articles in)
6 (7655742 3411 you did visit it on)
7 Q. You just used the words "defamatory¶

8 statements." Did you make a determination that there
9 was a statement in some publication that was defamatory?¶

10 A. I was given the gist of the statements that --
11 the statements that linked Mr. [REDACTED] to the Ponzi
12 scheme of Mr. Rothstein, and then I checked for the
13 explicit statement, those particular statements in each
14 of the 104 articles.¶

15 Q. I understand that, but I'm talking about the
16 word "defamatory."¶

17 "Defamatory" is a legal word; is it not?¶

18 A. I don't know whether it's a legal word or not.¶

19 Q. Well, what does it mean? When you were doing
20 your work you said you used "defamatory statements."
21 And I want to know what you concluded was a defamatory
22 statement and we'll talk about --¶

23 A. Sure.¶

24 Q. -- the credentials you have to make that
25 determination for -- to say that to a jury.¶

1 A. As I outlined in my report in one of the
2 paragraphs that we can go through, I outlined explicitly
3 what the statements were that I used.¶

4 Q. I understand what a statement is. I don't
5 have any problem with you doing research. The research
6 that you did makes sense to me. If you plugged in a
7 sentence and wanted to see how many times it was used,
8 that makes sense to me.¶

9 A. Uh-huh.¶

10 Q. (I dirty in the understand that language and the)
11 (Sociation you had chabout as a statement linguist for famatory)
12 (And I want to know how you had chabout that what was)
13 (Statement you were treasuring in was the defamatory)
14 (Statement)¶

15 (A) (The defamatory statement was something that)
16 (was provided by a citation in a report that it was these)
17 (Statements that I had in the post of the the ponzi scheme)
18 (Statement that I had was provided in med)
19 (In a) (Say you were told by a little media ward)
20 (Statement that I had was they thought was)
21 (Defamatory)¶

22 (A) (These were the statements I was told in 1668)
23 (Continue)
24 (A) (Okay) (So that you have to say that in fact)¶

25 (A) (Okay) (So that you have to say that in fact)¶

1 (What is defamatory?)¶

2 (A) (No)
3 Q. All right. Is there a way that you could
4 describe the statement from your words what you were
5 doing? Because the word "defamatory" is not your word,
6 is it, in this report? That's one of the lawyer's
7 words.¶

8 A. Well, it was a description I used for those
9 particular statements. It was provided to me, what
10 those statements were.¶

11 Q. Okay. So you chose the word "defamatory
12 statements"?¶

13 A. I didn't say that, no. I was provided that
14 these are the defamatory statements to look for.¶

15 Q. (It had) (So that previously what was the defamatory)¶

16 (And that was a statement you treasured and defamatory was)¶

17 (No yours)¶

18 (A) (What the lawyer were defamatory to be called no the)¶

19 (Sociation)
20 Q. Okay. Is there something about my question
21 that's causing you pause?¶

22 A. A little bit, yeah. (It is not)¶

23 (Investigation) You're asking me kind of a legal
24 question.¶

25 Q. Uh-huh.¶

1 A. And I'm just telling you that I was provided
2 these statements.¶

3 Q. And the reason I'm asking is you told me your
4 opinion was about defamatory statements. And that has a
5 lot of significance to it. And I want to understand who
6 determined what statements were defamatory, whether you
7 did that or the lawyers for Mr. [REDACTED] did that.¶

8 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, repetitious, asked
9 and answered.¶

10 A. Yeah, your question is asking kind of two
11 questions.¶

12 BY MR. LINK:¶

13 Q. You may answer both. Go ahead.¶

14 A. All right. The statements linking Mr. [REDACTED]
15 to this Ponzi scheme by Mr. Rothatein, I mean, those
16 were statements I looked for. I looked for the explicit
17 statement, you know, those particular expression of
18 those statements. At -- the aspect of whether they were
19 defamatory or not from a legal aspect is not within my
20 purview.¶

21 Q. Right. Okay. So that must mean that the
22 language "defamatory statement" was provided to you by
23 either Mr. Scarola or Mr. [REDACTED].¶

24 A. Well, yeah -- yes, that particular subject
25 matter was provided, yes.¶

1 Q. Okay. So then what are the sub-categories of
2 opinions that you have?¶

3 A. Well, we can go over my report but -- and I'll
4 provide those.¶

5 Q. I have your report, but I want you to tell me
6 what opinions you're planning to provide to the jury.¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: And you should understand that
8 to the extent that it assists you in providing an
9 accurate response to any question that is asked
10 during the course of this deposition, you're free
11 to refer to anything that you'd like to.¶

12 I have a copy of your report here. If you
13 want to look at that, you are free to do that. As
14 long as Mr. Link knows what it is you're looking
15 at, if it helps you to give honest and accurate
16 answers, you're free to look at that.¶

17 MR. LINK: Jack, I don't agree to that. I
18 don't want you to hand him exhibits --¶

19 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry that --¶

20 MR. LINK: -- and tell him what he can do.¶

21 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry that you don't
22 agree --¶

23 MR. LINK: I don't.¶

24 MR. SCAROLA: -- but that happens to be a
25 matter of law. He has a right to refresh his¶

1 Q. Okay. Do you have any other opinions in this
2 case other than the one you just shared with me?¶

3 A. Well, there's supporting opinions that I
4 outline in my report but that's the major -- that's what
5 I was asked to do, dissemination of these defamatory
6 statements.¶

7 Q. So -- okay, so you keep saying "defamatory
8 statements." And when you say that, the reason it
9 causes me concern is whether a statement is defamatory
10 is for a judge or jury to decide.¶

11 A. Okay. Then maybe I'm --¶

12 Q. You're not the judge or jury in this case.¶

13 A. I mean [REDACTED] that statement in a colloquial sense
14 rather than the legal sense you're using it in.¶

15 Q. So what we're really talking about, though, is
16 a statement and how many times that statement was picked
17 up by the press; is that right?¶

18 A. The press -- yes, it was available on-line --¶

19 Q. Do you --¶

20 A. -- a particular type of subject matter for
21 these particular statements, yes.¶

22 Q. Right Okay And so whether or not that
23 statement was defamatory or not is not on analysis you
24 engaged in?¶

1 recollection to refer to anything that he wants to
2 during the course of the deposition as long as you
3 are aware of the fact that he's referring to
4 something and have a chance to look at it yourself.¶

5 MR. LINK: I don't want to argue with you.
6 Please let me take my deposition the way I want to.¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: You're free to do that.¶

8 BY MR. LINK:¶

9 Q. So what I'm asking is what your opinions are.¶

10 A. Uh-huh.¶

11 Q. And we'll get to your report. And if you
12 don't remember something, just tell me you don't
13 remember.¶

14 But, I want to know as you sit here what
15 you're going to tell the jury. And I understand opinion
16 number one is that you took a statement given to you by
17 Mr. [REDACTED] and Mr. Scarola and you did your research to
18 see how many times you could find it in the press;
19 right?¶

20 A. A statement, yes, or similar statements that
21 related to it, yes.¶

22 Q. Got it.¶

23 What other conclusions or opinions did you
24 reach other than that one?¶

I that support that particular opinion.¶

1 Q. T'm asking what are they, sir.¶

A. Okay. Well, that the statements were¶

1 distributed to 74 different on-line sites, that I¶

I calculated the traffic to those particular sites. The¶

6 sites that I couldn't verify the traffic or didn't feel¶

IJ outlined 12 different steps of why that is a¶

I, exanples in ag report.¶

I) Q. Okay. So that just sounds like the number"¶

t4 that you found when you did your singular opinion, which¶

Is le to See where this statement provided to you by the¶

:4 lawyers was replicated in the press, and that's the¶

I, :umber of times that you saw that; is that right?¶

Is Well, that was one of my mein opinion but you¶

zt Yeah.¶

22 -- was a conservative estimate.¶

zi Okay. My other opinions?¶

/4 We can go through paragraph by paragraph in¶

I had reliable traffic numbers t didn't include. The¶

104 article", I looked through each of those articles¶

for defamatory statements, using that colloquially. I¶

conservative estimate, that 9,635,542, and give several¶

asked for the sub-opinions and rve outlined it, that¶

9,645,54? --¶

the report but I gave you the --¶

with in deciding whether you would be retained in thl,¶

case was Mr. Sear011, Mt Mr.

¶

That is correct.¶

4 Did you have contact with Mr. I llabent¶

▪ the content of your report?¶

Yea.¶

And did you have contact with Mr.¶

O about what -- the way your report le written?¶

• A. Well, yes, he -- It. reviewed a draft¶

10 of the report.¶

AM gave you contents on the writing of the¶

52 report?¶

11 A. Yee, loseleally.¶

la Q. Made ewe changes to¶

IS Made sore suggestions¶

16 O. Okay. And di s suggestion'?¶

17 A. Meat of t noes, yea. and there¶

le was one remorse tion t t asked it I could include¶

If in rty report.¶

O. d yoe do that? tl¶

Pt 1 10 So you took his wording changes end you¶

54 • lads asking you to do so; is that right?¶

a W lel change to your report lased on¶

A. he ashid if T could include something and 1¶

Q. That's it?¶

A. -- broadest *Pinion'¶

1 0. Okay. When were YOU re case,¶

sir?¶

1 A. By October 2017. on r atOut¶

MR. LIMA: Okay Let sad and mark the¶

report as Exhibit¶

I, •• follows:)¶

It the document referred to was¶

If ma Is Exhibit Kunber 2 for identification.)¶

I/ BY¶

Ready? lot's turn to page 3, sir. On page J¶

thine what your assignment was.¶

ze And who provided you with the assignment? Who¶

" gave you what's in paragraph 9?¶

4 A. That would be Mr. Sterols.¶

Q. Mr. Sterols gave you paragraph 9?¶

Yeah. It's a -- and [ added sone words to the¶

thing to wake it more in line with whet I had to do but¶

dr that's basically just to looking for --¶

(Thereupon. • e1 iscussion was held off¶

the record, which deposition continued as¶

Okay.¶

A. -- those types of words.¶

Q. All right. So the person that you had contact¶

4 Did they give you any definition of what¶

a A. The -- again, this 'defaming' is kind of¶

felt it was in line, so yes.¶

0. Okay. So back CO paragraph 9 for a second,

The question that you were asked by Mr. $00,018 and¶

Mr. is: What la the level of diSSeednatiOn of¶

defaming statements?¶

"defaming' means?¶

legal thing you're harping on here. I' use it in¶

colloquial expression. And they gave Oa What the¶

statements I was to look for.¶

Right. So is the word "defaming" here really¶

superfluous from your standpoint? What you really¶

needed were the Stated/WIGS and not an adjective to¶

describe then for you to do your work?¶

For WO to do my work?¶

Q. Yes, sir.¶

S. =OttSeSiSSCSa¶

CaSheOrd=littatlira:Zialn:XV/raberen41 IchtliThavalangta2bCFrirStraretiantrYttOidlnata 0¶

troorkOsoulsCit3¶

?i PiCIDDgJLWlR12.110tattatatir¶

ittnildnICTbaog0Y2dorle3 boot at¶

Q. Okay. Turn to page SA plea". paragraph 15, if you would.¶

A. Yes. Q. ft says: The defaming statements associating 1 Mr. with the illegal activities of 4 Mr. Rothstein..." Do you see that? A. Yes. 0. What is the statement that you searched for? 4 A. Well, it was -- it varied slightly, you know. 1 document to document, but it was an association with -- '0 that Mr. was somehow knowingly involved with the • illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein. • 0. What was the word search that you used? :1 A. Well, again, tO find the articles Or the ,4 statements in the articles. • O. I want to know the word search that you were • looking for. As I understand your assignment. it was to 1 take the connection of Mr. with Mr. Rothstein '3 and Mr. Rothateln's illegal activities and prepare a :3 report and identify every place that there was • 00 reference to Mr. and Mr. Rothstein and the 2: illegal activities. is that right? A. You're going to have to say that ono more 2) time. 04 Q. Okay. 23 Sorry.¶

? c 8 O. r thought I understood that the nment • that you had was to *imply take Mr. Ro et 1 Mr. and the concept of il tiv es. an: 4 then *earth and see where In t 1 newspapers, that COmbinatiOn sts. MR. SCAROLA: Ps god ject to the aiSeaaratteritati f the answer that was a previously given, h eluded • reference to the fact the r dloy r rds was a knowing participant :0 in t fl 1 activities. Thank you for that clarification. wn" A: You're welcome. ), I can take your question two different • One, what I used to look at these :3 nts. and those I outline in my report. ti BY NR. LINK: Q. Oh-huh. • A. And then the actual statements in each of .) these documents. And those statements vary slightly, 20 you know, article to article. But it was somehow there • I as a reader of these articles would -- that the 32 article expressed that Mr. was somehow knowingly 'I involved In these illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein. 24 0. Okay. So is that the key to this? The ,3 article needed to show that Mr. was knowingly¶

I involved with Mothstein's illegal activities? Is 2 that -- Ia that right? A. That Mr. was involved with these illegal activities and that so -- you're writing it down like that was the only natant I searched for. Rut, as I said, in each of these 104 sickles that verbiage changed likely article to article. Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Scarola corrected ne and added the word "knowing.' That's why I added the Weid 10 to my sentence. it Was that not a word that was important to y3 12 in determining whether the statenent re mapposed 11 to fird was included in an article 14 A. 1 don't understand t IS 0. Well. 1 just asked the statement that 16 you were asked to loca tines it was 17 disseminated was t like this: • it le was know' g with Rothstein', It activity. 20 A. n going to refer you to ParagraPh 15 21 that ea: Defaming statements associating 22 illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein... So ether it was Mr. knew whether or not was not germane to your research? A. that's not what T said.¶

'4140 S31 C¶

O. Well, I just read what you wrote here and it just *aye associating him. It doesn't say whether he knew or didn't know. And I'm trying to really understand if you were looking for articles that simply say: and Rothstein. And Rothstein has illegal activity. Or you 1 were looking for articles that said: Mr. was • a known participant in the Ronal scheme. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Object to the form of the 10 question as it excludes the possibility that both IS were included. 12 11 MR. LINK: Good coaching. 14 BY MR. Link: 13 IS 11 Q. A. coaching. Go right ahead. t don't understand the comment about the le Q. No, It was just for Mr. Scarola's purposes. 19 A. Okay. Could you repeat the question? 20 Q. I probably can't. I don't remenber what. ' 21 asked now, but I'll come up with another question. 22 MR. SCAROLA: I'd be happy to help, if you'd 2/ like -- 24 MR. !JIM: No, no -- 23 MR. SCAROLA: -- cause 1 remember it.¶

MR. LINK: -- I'll figure it out . 1 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. MR. LINK: I'll figure it out. DY NB. LINK: Q. I'm trying to understand what was important t " you in doing your search -- Uh -huh. Q. -- because I understand the nowhere. That ) makes sense to me. That's sort of the easy part of '0 this. What I'm trying to understand is what you were tt searching to find, so that I can then talk to you about whether the articles you located satisfy the search 'I request you were seeking. Does that make sense? And when I read your sentence in paragraph IS, 'I if that's what you were looking for, then whether Mr. knew or didn't know would not be important ') to you in your search. :1 A. Malt. I -- you know, well, you can argue and 20 interpreter It how you would like. But as T explain In IS ay report, you know. 1 looked In these -- in the '2 articles where that Mr. was involved, knew 23 stout, contributed to, that somehow had to get across in those articles to se. 21 Q. Okay.¶

A. So the exact -- yeah. 0. Involved, knew about -- and Involved, knew Wee O. Somehow involved. 1 t was? MR. LINK: Jack, do r? Contributed to. MR. LINK: Co to. 1 about. involve!, knew about, contribute] Amnia: Contributed to. 3 : Got it. Thank you. K: Okay. So -- so then you were focused on not .4 just that Mr. was employed at the Rothstein firm and that the Rothstein firm was involved in illegal 'm activities. You were looking for articles that 3 connected Mr. to that illegal activity. ;a A. That is a very good example. Yes, there were 'I articles that, for example, said that Mr. was 22 employed in Hr. Rothstein's firm, and those articles I 'I didn't include. It had to be somehow that he was 2, somehow associated with this. 2) O. With the illegal activities?¶

A. Kith the illegal activities. 0. Get it. Okay. Al: right. Kill you turn to page 13. pleas.. 4 admen you were identifying articles in which there was 000000000 rade to Its. Re.thitain.$ illegal activities and " Kr. Involvement or contribution to or knowledge about those activities, did it ratter to you where that information cart [ran? And here is Haat I mean. Did you exclude, for 10 example. press statertnts by Km. Scarola? S3 A. Well, there's two west:ono there. Lot ma II deal with the last one. I roan, : don' recall any IS press -- looting at any press tele Kr I, ao I don't think I included th IS O. How about statements press by 56 Kr. Scarola? 17 r your other le taxation, which ght now I forgot. IS O. Okay. deal with the question of when 20 you we 21 22 want to rake sure I answer your • -- it actually was a very good We're going to get back to it. DM. SCAJIOIA: Do you want the earlier cap:end¶

queatica read took to you? TRH 11111F-SS: Yes, the earlier coopound q2eation read back. KR. LINK: Read it bock. Row about it? Objection suatained. rrnereupon, the following was rood by the Court Reporter: 'Question: All right. Will you turn to pa? 13, please. When pita were identifying articles which there we reference wade to Kr. Rothstein. illegal activities end Mr. 1111111' involvement contribution to or knowledge about those I) activities, did it natter to you where that le information care frost? IS *And here is Mat T mean. Did you exclude. is for example, press statements by Sr. Soarola79 12 A. Yes to the first question. Yes, it did matter is where it cart from. SO BY MR. L:M<: 20 O. Okay. Mrplain to me why and what you did to II narrow the field. It A. For example, I ignored several -- there's a 23 lot or 63CUT4ftta court documents about this case that 24 are available on-line. I didn't link those bells. Y, 25 know, I lust hit -- 1 --¶

2 You did not? Specifically court documents, no, 1 did rot 3 include those. 4 Q. They're identified in your report, the court s documents. 6 A. Where are they identified? O. Okay. Mt will look at that. So you excluded court documents? Yes. Now, if -- the only disclose -- just to !, clarify that, if an article referenced a court document or had a snippet from s Court document, you know, like ,2 free a news article, time I included it. But if it was " just. you knee, about Sc- Florida Court Association repialdtOry, no, I didn't include those. :s O. All right. Any other limitations? :6 A. They -- if, for example, there were articles :2 that just mentioned the case -- Q. Oh-huh. :) A. -- but didn't mention that -- had the statements about Mr. being involved in those 2: illegal activities. I didn't include those. '2 There may have been some other examples. But 23 my real -- my real aspect was to focus on some type of explicit publishing of those statements. :1 All right. And so I take it then that you¶

statements or articles or interviews were Created by Mr. or Mr. Scarela, thole are Still included in the nutter of it you identified with statements:7n BY Wt. LIMO: Q. Okay. Let re ask the question again. 7 think we missed a couple of words. Let to see if : can break s it down. So let's take it then -- for oxargele, the It first article listed on page 13. Do you see that that'- 11 an October 4th, 2017 article? 12 A. Well, 7 net want to -- that' -- this 1: 22 search result, • snippet linked to cle. 24 O. Bight. And I asm t a cle that': 1S referenced here is one that you uded as a hit in 16 looking for a statement 're showing it. I? A. Moll, no, in pure 1 1 just give - le trying to explai n area of search quer:e. 19 2 would have to particular link, if I 20 int rot link in my report. 21 is -- okay. we all you're doing in 22 caste I read it wrong, is it says: This is Figure 1, I think; right? That is cornett.¶

I were not eliminating articles that, for e . If 2 Mr. Scarola or Mr. woke to a 1 1 to en article being written or t vl rter 2 tO • hearing or had lunch with talk about s the Case, which created an Mr cis. Yep dn't exclude 6 those from your analysis? ?irl MR. SCAROLA: amen. Objection, no predicate, and compound. 15 20 21 2 2 2) 24 75 answer it. the 104 documents I looked for the he statement that linked Mr. to activities. So that if -- so that if some of the or articles or interviews were created by Mr. or Mr. Sterols, those are still included In the number of hems you identified with statements? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, no proper predicate, assumes facto not in evidence, no good faith basis to suggest such things ever happened. A. Can I have the question back? MR. LIMB: Please. iThereupon, the following was read by the Cart Reporter: 'Question: So that if some of the¶

• Q. Google search results for search: epstein Pone. scheme. Right? A. Yea. 0. 1== So these are the item that popped on that search, and then you would read the article to see what it said? 6 A. Yea, these are the first -- well, these are the first five articles from that particular query. And then I'd open into the article end then reed whet the article said. O. Okay. And were TOO Provided any parameters 2 ) I:Velar. Schroth Or Mr. for tea tint flame 24 you should *mirth for? is A. From then specifically I was not Provided with 24 a time frame. 17 O. Okay. Did they ask you to limit your mare* le to the tire period that Mr. Bpetein's Cagle/et again, ' 19 Mr. Rothstein and Mr. was pending? 20 Not explicitly, no. 21 0. Okay. Did you limit your search to that yr- :2 period? 22 A. Yes. 24 Q. Al: right. So that your search should not 2S contain any articles that go pest 2012?¶

1 A. That is incorrect.¶

2 Q. All right. So then you did search for
3 articles that came into existence after Mr. Epstein's
4 Complaint against Mr. Rothstein and Mr. [REDACTED] was
5 dismissed?¶

6 A. Let me -- let me go back. I misunderstood
7 your question.¶

8 Q. Uh-huh.¶

9 A. All right. I -- the lawyer talk of "claims,"
10 "counterclaims," is throwing me a little bit. I did it
11 from the original lawsuit from Mr. Epstein against
12 Mr. Rothstein and Mr. [REDACTED] and one other person.
13¶

14 Q. Uh-huh.¶

15 A. So, yeah, that's what -- when you said the
16 "lawsuit" that's what I was --¶

17 Q. So you started your search December 7th, 2009.
18 That's when the lawsuit --¶

19 A. Correct.¶

20 Q. -- was filed. And when did you end your
21 search to look for articles that would have been related
22 to that lawsuit?¶

23 A. The -- well, I stopped searching in around 17,
24 18, October. So I included every article that I ran
25 into.¶

26 Q. And were you aware when you did your search¶

1 that the December 7th, 2009 lawsuit was dismissed in
2 2012?¶

3 A. I don't know exactly what you mean by
4 "dismissed." But in articles I've read, I read the
5 lawsuit was no longer pending.¶

6 Q. And that -- was that information that the
7 lawsuit was no longer pending in 2012 important to the
8 gathering of the articles that contained information
9 about Mr. Edwards and Mr. Rothstein?¶

10 A. Mr. -- for what I had to do, no.¶

11 Q. Okay. Do you know the time period that
12 Mr. Edwards filed his counterclaim against Mr. Epstein,
13 when that happened?¶

14 A. Except for here, no, I do not.¶

15 Q. Did it influence any of the research that you
16 did that Mr. [REDACTED] filed a public counterclaim lawsuit
17 against Mr. Epstein within 30 days of December 9th,
18 2009?¶

19 A. I -- again, all the lawsuit stuff I don't
20 know.¶

21 Q. All right. Did you find any articles between
22 December 7th and when Mr. [REDACTED] and his lawyer,
23 Mr. Scarola, filed their counterclaim lawsuit against
24 Mr. Epstein?¶

25 A. I have no idea what that means.¶

1 Q. Okay. You have an appendix to Exhibit 2,
2 which is your written report in this case, that
3 identifies --¶

4 MR. SCAROLA: Did you mean to give me this
5 copy?¶

6 MR. LINK: I meant to.¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: [REDACTED], okay.¶

8 MR. LINK: I meant to. And the reason I did
9 is all of these articles are going to correspond to
10 the actual article itself, Jack, so we can tie them
11 in together.¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: Got it. Thank you.¶

13 MR. LINK: Let's go ahead and park this
14 Exhibit 3.¶

15 (Thereupon, the document referred to was
16 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 for identification.)
17 BY MR. LINK:¶

18 Q. All right. We're looking at Exhibit 3, which
19 is the appendix to the written report you prepared in
20 this case, is that right?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

22 Q. And under Reports and Articles Referenced,
23 these are the reports and articles that you found
24 contained the statement about Mr. [REDACTED] and
25 Mr. Rothstein and illegal activities; is that right?¶

1 A. Well, no, not exactly.¶

2 Q. How do I have it wrong?¶

3 A. These reports and articles are articles that I
4 referenced in my report as footnotes and things like
5 that to support the textual things I'm writing.¶

6 Q. Well, were there additional articles that you
7 did not list in your report that you reviewed that
8 contain the statement that you were searching for?¶

9 A. Yes, there were.¶

10 Q. Okay. So I thought I heard you say that there
11 were approximately 108 articles you reviewed. On here
12 it lists 121. Which of the 108 articles that you
13 reviewed that contain the statement have you not
14 identified in your appendix, sir?¶

15 A. Well, one correction. It's 104.¶

16 Q. 104. Thank you.¶

17 A. And I do include the 104 articles.¶

18 Q. So then when I asked if every article that
19 included the statement about Mr. Rothstein and
20 Mr. [REDACTED] and illegal activity that is part of your
21 calculation, if it was included in the appendix, the
22 answer is yes?¶

23 A. Well, that's not the question you asked me.
24 If you're asking me if all of those articles are listed
25 here in Appendix C, then the answer is yes.¶

1 Q. Okay. Great. So let's start with item number
2 2, which is --¶

3 MR. SCAROLA: Could I make a suggestion?¶

4 MR. LINK: Yes, sir.¶

5 MR. SCAROLA: Because I think maybe you're a
6 little bit confused and it might be helpful if we
7 clarify something.¶

8 MR. LINK: Please.¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: There's a separate appendix that
10 appears at page 87. You are referencing an
11 appendix at page 79.¶

12 MR. LINK: Yesh.¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: It's the list that begins at
14 page 87, which is specifically labeled Links to
15 Articles Containing the Defaming Statements.¶

16 Do you see that?¶

17 MR. LINK: Yesh, but those are not the
18 articles.¶

19 MR. SCAROLA: If you're going --¶

20 MR. LINK: Those are just links to them. You
21 can't actually get the article from doing that. We
22 tried.¶

23 MR. SCAROLA: Well, okay, I'm just suggesting
24 to you that maybe --¶

25 MR. LINK: I understand.¶

1 MR. SCAROLA: No.¶

2 MR. LINK: Let's go ahead and mark this as
3 Exhibit 4, please.¶

4 (Thereupon, the document referred to was
5 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4 for identification.)¶

6 THE WITNESS: Can I stand up and get my water?¶

7 MR. LINK: Absolutely.¶

8 MR. SCAROLA: Want to take a short break?¶

9 We've been going for about an hour.¶

10 THE WITNESS: Yesh, that would be good.¶

11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:59. Going
12 off the record.¶

13 (Thereupon, at 9:59 a.m. I receipt was taken
14 until 10:04 a.m., after which the deposition continued
15 as follows:)¶

16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:04. We are
17 back on the record.¶

18 BY MR. LINK:¶

19 Q. All right. So Jansen Exhibit 4, which
20 correlates to number 2, is this an article that contains
21 a statement in it that you then looked to see how many
22 touches or how many people logged on to read it?¶

23 A. I don't know. I can check it, if you want.¶

24 Q. Would you please?¶

25 A. I don't see a statement.¶

1 MR. SCAROLA: -- maybe you want to clarify the
2 relationship between Appendix C and Appendix D.
3 You might be -- you might be better able to focus
4 on where you want to go if you do that.¶

5 MR. LINK: I think I'm okay.¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.¶

7 MR. LINK: This is the only way we can get the
8 articles up because they were not attached.¶

9 THE WITNESS: I provided all the articles.¶

10 MR. LINK: Right. Some of them -- actually,
11 some I got, some were not there.¶

12 THE WITNESS: No, I provided hard copies --
13 electronic copies of every single one.¶

14 MR. LINK: To?¶

15 THE WITNESS: Someone from your law firm who
16 contacted me.¶

17 MR. LINK: Okay. Well, we printed them. It
18 doesn't really matter. I think we have them. So
19 we will go through them.¶

20 And we're looking at number --¶

21 What are we on, 4?¶

22 THE COURT REPORTER: Uh-huh.¶

23 MR. LINK: Which should have a number
24 corresponding to number 2 on here.¶

25 Jack, did I give you an article?¶

1 Q. Okay. So this would not be an article then
2 that would be included in your numbers?¶

3 A. If it doesn't contain the statement no, it
4 would not be included in the number.¶

5 Q. Could you explain to me why it's commented
6 upon in your written report if it doesn't contain the
7 statement?¶

8 A. Again, back to this section here. These are
9 reports and articles that were actually referenced in my
10 report as citations for some statements. This is not
11 the list of articles that contain the defaming
12 statements.¶

13 Q. I understand that, but you told me all 104 of
14 them are listed in this section of the appendix.¶

15 A. No, I did not. It's in Web Page Printouts
16 section of this appendix.¶

17 Q. So if I turn in your report to page --¶

18 MR. LINK: Mr. Scarola is going to help me.¶

19 MR. SCAROLA: 87.¶

20 BY MR. LINK:¶

21 Q. -- 87, that's the list of articles, is that
22 right?¶

23 A. It's actually in two places. I have it in
24 that appendix with a nice list of each of the articles
25 and the domains. And then I also have it in Appendix C¶

4 Web Page Printouts. Okay. So if I go to web Page Printouts those are the articles?¶

:3 A. Okay.¶

:2 A. Yes, sir.¶

:4 O. I don't have IS here but 1 have 19. So let's take s look ett that.¶

:4 MR. LAIN: Lot's go ahead and mark this as Exhibit 5.¶

:1 :e (Thereupon, the document referred to was marked Plaintiff.* Exhibit Member 5 for identification.)¶

here in Web Page Printouts, which is a different section of this appendix.¶

A. Yell. sir.¶

Q. Okay. Good. That helped. All right. So I'm on the right appendix, wrong Place.¶

So it starts with what 1 have lumbered as 10.¶

0. Rory helpful. Thank you.

:) BY NR. LIMO:¶

27 MR. SCAROLA: Are you testifying?¶

23 21 MR. LINK: No. I'm making sure that - not. I'm making sure that yOt1 understand what we're looking at.¶

0. Okay. So Exhibit 5 correlates on page SO to the handwritten number 19.

I : grabbed the screenshoto for oath of these articles n, i 2 provide the link In the report and an actual screens).— • of the article in the collection of documents in ny¶

• report that was provided to, I guess, both attorneys. KR. LINK: All right. Okay. Lot's nark th:2 • as the next exhibit, Exhibit 6.¶

7 fOnereuPeo, the document referred to was a marked Plaintiff's Exhibit limber 6 for identification.)¶

• By MR. LINK:¶

le Q. This Exhibit 6 -- I'll do It a different way. II now. :his Exhibit 6, does that correlate to the¶

It htLICST2tten number it co page SO or Exh. it 3?¶

IS A. 100:1. the In is not he title is the same. So, I mean -- yeah, the IS URL is not here, so I can't say sure it's the 'mac' la are article but the t¶

17 O. Okay. Aroma t 1 article that you my.' la have reviewed?¶

IS A. : can't all 16.0 articles. nut, 1,2 20 I said, -a not here, to I can't really say foe 21 sure, le to the awe.¶

22 see this -- . SCA:IOLA: Let to also point out that whet¶

\ 2 . have narked as Exhibit Harbor 6 clearly is only • portion of this article.¶

MR. SCAROLA: Because that didn' red like's question.¶

MR. SCAROLA: It's not. is sure that the record is --¶

A. I don't think I've San thiS [Ore. this particular printout.¶

, BY NR. 1.111X:¶

a You haven't a6nf tB19 article?¶

No¶

A n't all seeing it.¶

So then if you haven't seen it, then it ) won been referenced in the data that you¶

Well, this article. I mean -- I)¶

Q. Okay. :t¶

A. -- this link is 19 so --¶

Q. Okay. And then you don't believe that this article that is marked as Exhibit 5 is the article to ;* that link? :4¶

21 I can almost tell you it's not.¶

22 Q. All right.¶

•I A. I can explain that, if you'd like.¶

24 O. Sure. Go ahead.¶

'I A. Yeah, this PreasReader is -- I Included all -- KR. LINK: I understand that. i'n just¶

trying to make rare we've got the right article:.¶

KR. &CAROLS: Okay. Well, you don't have t'o right article if all you've racked is a piece of the article. Ae know that that's the case.¶

Correct?¶

MR. L1NX: I'm not asking hire to covenant on¶

the article. Just If I've got the right¶

• BY MR. LINK:¶

Q. l* this the -- forget what al: of the¶

II irtfOtInetiCa contained in the article. Is this the 12 article. title and author that Is -- ties into I) handwritten number IS. If you Can tell?¶

It Yeah, to be really honest with you, I can't 41 tell beCaall the UAL is not here. You know, the title IS is the same.¶

1? MR. LINX: All right.¶

le Lot's aark this as Exhibit 7. 20 flhemelcon, the docurent referred to was 20 parked Plaintiff's Exhibit Nester 1 for identification.)¶

22 By KR. LINK:¶

Q. Exhibit 7 is an article from the New York¶

23 Post, October 5th, 2017. Does that Vie -- is this the 24 article, if you look at the top, pressreader.con, that 25 ties into handwritten =bet 19?¶

A. Yes, the URL is the same. This looks like one of my screenshots. So T believe this ties Into number ) 19 that you've annotated on this appendix.¶

4 Q. Okay. So is this one of the articles that you I located that contained the statement you were searching for?¶

I recall -- I recall this particular article, so yea.¶

All right. And what is the statement in here '0 that you found to fit the description of what you were • looking for?¶

• A. If I recall this correctly. T believe it was ') paragraph 6 that -- I, 2, 3 -- excuse ms, paragraph 5 is ,4 why I included this.¶

0. Okay. Anything *leo in hero A. The article included at least One statement. ') I mean, I can road the entire article but looks like :s paragraph 5 there mot my criteria.

O. Okay. And you say that this article came Out 23 In October of this year, just a couple of months ago? 21 A. Yea. I see that.¶

Q. All right. And do you know whore the 23 information for this article came from? :4 Tho New York post.¶

No, I understand that. I mean for Its¶

Eustschewich, the author of the article.¶

I didn't investigate where t r Or the source or where t nflRatiOr came from or who she spoke with?¶

A. No, T did not.¶

O. Do you know whether t • any quotes in ' any of the articles y viewed that were made by 4 Mr. Epstein?¶

NE:¶

Did Mr. Epstein give any quotes in any of the ,1 articles that you researched?¶

r Nell, I wasn't looking for that, so T :e really -- I don't know.¶

) Q. Did Mr. Epstein's lawyers give any quotes in 10 any of the articles that you researched?¶

I can't say for sure but there seem to be¶

12 plenty of lawyer quotes so --¶

,) O. I agree there are lots of lawyer quotes. I'm asking if Mr. Epstein's lawyers, not Mr. IIIIIII'¶

2/ lawyers, Mr. Epstein's lawyers were ever quoted end the¶

Mr. statements In the Complaint?¶

A: rate and apart from¶

I information they were quoted on included one of the 2 statements you were looking for?¶

• A. I can't -- I wasn't specifically looking rct 4 that. I can't recall.¶

S O. Okay. So who made the statement was not e Important to you, simply that the statement existed?¶

? That it occurred within the article: correct:¶

s And since this one was In 2017, that's about¶

• rive years aster Mr. Epstein's lawsuit against to Mr. Rothstein -- against Mr. Edward was dismissed: Si right?¶

12 A. : don't know.¶

13 Q. Nell, you know that 201? 1e than 2012?¶

IS A. Yes. I can do the¶

It O. Okay. tint* that you¶

17 found from -- Inn t 1 roc a timing le standpoint. Eta ie the dote of the first article t"u'.¶

19 you found that of the statements yell we, 20 lookirg¶

:I recall.¶

2e re something you can look at that . \ K. 2 t 40 t date of the first article that ow... , • AS1 ts the statement that Mt. Sterols and Mr. as S you to find?¶

You. I'm asking about the article.¶

I'm lust asking to clarify the¶

Nell, if we had all the electronic copies or the articles we could look at the dates that they worn published.¶

Do you have something with you that you can look at? : don't have -- 1 provided -- I provided those¶

particular documents, eo I don't have then with re. You didn't keep a copy or to your ce-puter¶

anything?¶

A. II, yes, I hove it. 11 0. Yeu have it?¶

have the docurents. 13 0. Okay. SO is there a way of looking at this 14 appendix or the report to determine the very first tin, IS and Mid, article you were able be locate One of the¶

IS statements you were searching tar?¶

r? Not by looking at the report, no.¶

le Nan you go through -- when I'm looking at It this report : see dates on here, a lot of 2017s. 2015. 10 Can you identify one of these that has a 2009¶

21 paelicatton date?¶

A. : mean, I can look through each of these ,C4¶

23 °Rio, if you want re to.¶

21 A. : don't know.¶

By taking a look at your appendix can you make that determination?¶

A. Well, let me look at the URLs.¶

O. Okay.¶

A. Now, just -- you know, a lot of these Inas¶

1 4 5 O. Okay. So What la it in paragraph -- T'n going to put. a bracket -- weld you put a bracket around the two paragraph, for me, please? Or jest identify them with a star, however you want to, so we knew Which 40,04.0 4 don't have dates. e we're looking at.¶

And then: marked at..."¶

O. i understand. In looking at what's available¶

to you today can you find one of these that existed in¶

1 2009? ICI¶

A. Well, let me leek.¶

MP. SGABOLA: nave you done the search of dates? Bet4Iuse if you've done it and you tell us 11 that it'40 not there for 2009, I'm willing to stipulate to that.¶

15 WI BR. LINK:¶

• 0. Go ahead. You can keep going.¶

A. Mo. Based on the UAL. -- looking at the URLa T cannot come to an article from 2009, if T recall the O question correctly. IS A. That is¶

16 Okay. 115e first paragraph, what Is It In that statement or In that paragraph contains the !Leant that you were eearching for?¶

12 12 I) 14 A. well, "...alleging the attorney was involved in false claims rode by Penni schemer t Rothstein.- And then explains the it tivitica. And then on the next d drib i ddreemes¶

IS as being the attorney --¶

16 Okay.¶

17 16 A. -- that t eua roguish referenced. 0. And th was a 0 article, April 22nd, 2011?¶

(Witness emcialled.1¶

)0 O. Okay. And in looking at the mats can you tell 72 what paper was this article written? it me how many of these articles were in existence before 2I the latio the Palm teach Omilly HOW,. 12 2012 when the lawsuit against Mr. was dismissed? 72 familiar with that newspaper?¶

k r

¶

23 A. Well, I could go through and look at then 734441 Pm not. 14 again but it's probably just very similar. And to kind A/1.04 Do you knew what its subscription is, the 2$ of outline, in my reports, you know, there are certain Iritter?¶

e t¶

documents that are no longer available. Yeah, looking at thee* BBL*,¶

All right. Thank you.¶

iTheroupon, a downs¶

Exhibit Number 8 for identlfi %len.)¶

6 BY MR. LINK:¶

3 Yea. On page I?, number 62, Palm Beach Daily 4 News, daily traffic 1,220.¶

I can look at my report.¶

Okay. littera in your report dace it say that.'¶

5 O. Okay. I'm sorry. I was distracted. Can yo::¶

6 do that one core time for re? 1 apologize.¶

' O. Exhibit 8 1 eve ties into handwritten 7 A. Yea, sir. Page I7.¶

3 nunbem 20. e 0. Page 17? f Con take look and see if T have that 9 A. And there's a table at the top. O right? m 0. Uh-hvh.¶

it art Ink I'm about 1 for 10. Hoyt* 2 II A. And item 'weber 62.¶

12 fo 1 m definitely not making the III', of FaXe. 1, 0. Yeah.¶

l$ IBM is cut off but this looks like what 27 A. The Palm Beach Deily News. Ts that the se annotated here as number 20. 14 correct? And than 0,320.¶

i5 All right. And this is an article that you If All right. CtlikatralWerCIMAD¶

14 have Included as one of the articles that contains the CO Siftlic3NICIUTCI T7: 72,7d7r011.2) I7 statement about Mr. you were searching fort dB 23, ft laaleirlinnt0110 se correct? 00 WittreC411MC¶

ts A. Yes. 19 O. On that day? O O. Can you show me where the statement is that 70 A. WEITrZtr=11=flitOILNYZOPOtIlrhele¶

1I caused you to select this document? 20 rilMtS779 0:311TengliMMCA3¶

/2 A. Paragraphs 7 and 8. 2a pcm4=X:PalitMIOCIceething-J1k4ILBACI ClUCIWItallyflj¶

O 0. Paragraph 7 that 'starts with the words: 2.3 (thdyttreCzayegrait'StItelredttitilniC3SIta¶

14 worked at..." 24 Q. Over what ;cried of time did you consider? So¶

1 A. Uh-huh.¶

2 Q. What time frame did you consider in
3 determining 8,320 people reviewed this article?¶

4 A. The -- I went to SimilarWeb, went to the
5 appropriate time period and then got the daily unique
6 traffic.¶

7 Q. And so for that time period there was an
8 average daily traffic for the paper or for this article?¶

9 A. As I explained in the report, for the paper.¶

10 Q. For the paper?¶

11 A. (THEWEBSITE)¶

12 Q. SO HOW MANY PEOPLE ON APRIL 22ND, 2011 READ
13 THIS ARTICLE?¶

14 A. (THAT'S WHAT THIS NUMBER PROVIDED) (THEWEBSITE)
15 (READ THIS NUMBER STATED HOW TYPICALLY AVAILABLE FOR THE
16 INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES)¶

17 Q. Okay. Can you tell me of the 8,320 people
18 that looked at The Shiny Sheet during some period of
19 time in April 2011 how many actually read this article?¶

20 A. The -- let me kind of go back. I thought you
21 were referring to the palmbeachdailynews.com, not this
22 Shiny Sheet.¶

23 But this particular -- these numbers are used
24 for the particular readership. So it would be -- a way
25 of looking at it would be this would be a max but a¶

1 calculation, so I did the average.¶

2 Q. All right. So you came up with doing the math
3 8,320?¶

4 A. Correct.¶

5 Q. And that's the approximate number of people
6 that logged into the on-line site?¶

7 A. Or visited that particular site.¶

8 Q. Or visited that particular site.¶

9 But it's hitting the site, not this article?¶

10 A. That is correct.¶

11 Q. All right. So you can't tell me how many of
12 the folks that logged on to the Palm Beach Daily News on
13 April 22nd, 2011 actually even [REDACTED] the article about
14 Mr. Epstein and Mr. [REDACTED]?¶

15 A. I did find out exact readership is difficult
16 to nearly impossible, especially when it comes to
17 on-line newspapers and things like that, because the way
18 people read.¶

19 Q. I understand that. So isn't my statement
20 true, you can't tell me how many people on that day
21 actually read this article?¶

22 A. No, that's not exactly true. What -- I think
23 the way to look at this number is this is an
24 approximation -- a good approximation of the readership,
25 and it specifically addresses my particular assignment,¶

1 conservative number on the number of readerships.¶

2 Q. Okay. Let's try this again. As I understand,
3 there were 8,320 people approximately because you did an
4 average based on some period of time; right?¶

5 A. Well, it's not I did an average. That's
6 typically how it's done if you're looking for a
7 particular period, you know, there. (BECAUSE APPROXIMALLY
8 GOING BACK THIS FALL, YOU KNOW IT IS TYPICALLY AVAILABLE)
9 (FOR A MONTH OF THE GIVEN PERIOD) So these traffic
10 services, they do the averaging many times.¶

11 Q. Oh, so the 8,320 was provided to you by a
12 service?¶

13 A. Well, yes, I use -- it's one of the traffic
14 services I use.¶

15 Q. And so the date -- the inquestion is making it do
16 did you take a month of the formation, and then taking
17 assume there were 30 days in it, and total that up and
18 then divided by 30?¶

19 Q. (Cash)
20 Q. (To get an average)
21 Q. (That would be a way daily traffic)
22 (Sales stated)¶

23 Q. But did you do that or did you pull it from a
24 service is what I'm asking you?¶

25 A. I believe SimilarWeb gives a monthly¶

1 which was to major a dissemination of these particular
2 statements.¶

3 Q. Well, as a part of your assignment, as I
4 understand it, the number you came up with would be the
5 number of individuals who this information was
6 disseminated to.¶

7 A. That is correct.¶

8 Q. Which means they had to read it; right?¶

9 If it's going to impact me and I'm going to
10 form an opinion about Mr. [REDACTED] based on that read, if
11 I don't read it, then it hasn't impact my view of him.
12 Do you agree with that?¶

13 A. It depends what you mean by "read."¶

14 Q. Well, if I don't read this article, I don't
15 see the statement; do I?¶

16 A. Well, if you -- you know, I get many e-mails
17 from different newspapers and I go to different
18 newspaper sites and a lot of times there will be mini
19 stories on the pages and I'll read the headline and the
20 snippet from the particular paragraph and then read some
21 stories.¶

22 And so -- but you're asking a question that I
23 was not asked to actually investigate, the exact
24 readership of these particular articles. I was asked
25 the dissemination of these particular statements. And¶

2 that was my 9,669,342. But you're not telling us that number or people actually read any one of these statements) are a you? 4 A. The exact readership, no. Okay. And you can't tell me as you sit hers today how many people actually read this article. 4 Exhibit 8. dated April 22nd, 20114 can you? A. I Could say it's -- you know, the muter that ,0 were disseminated to was 8.320. Bet, no, I can't say '' the exact readership of that particular article. a O. Okay. And you can't tell me the erect a readership of any of the articles that you 10Cated; Can you? :s A. I'm going topeben IOW role as am expert. I mean, this Is not like counting loose change in your " pocket. I mean, it's -- there's multiple -- there's traffic rankers. And so these -- then particular traffic number* are what's used in the industry for ,0 readership in audits. 2: O. So let me try my gention ono sore time. 22 Sir, you can't tell se the actual number of 2) people that road any one of then articles that you have 24 identified, can you, sir? 24 A. Although., am i tried to explain, but on the AS"¶

technical aspects of it but, no, the exec [ship. no. next to It 0 Take a look at this it. =Rota: Sahib! TEE COURT REPORTER) it. Lila: Yee, air. iTheroupOn marked Plaintiff's E h BY It. UNE: O. A' 9 T be docunont referred to was r 9 for Identification.' if 1 have done this right. Exhibit • to item handwritten number 21. Let me chock. it looks 111m this is that particular . All right. Can you please tell me the number of hits on October 20, 2013 to the Pals Beach Daily Ikms on-line paper for that day? A. Well, there was -- we just looked at that. It was 8.320. And you told no that was for a month period of tine in 2011. This is two years later. So I'm - 2 asking -- you're not telling us that two years later the erect sane number of people were touching the website; are you? 2, A. The -- in my report if an article -- multiple¶

' articles were [rem the sere mbeite, I just Included one traffic amber. O. Okay. Se wee it your memption that the 4 exact nee 'weber or people that looted at the Peril 22nd, 2011 article looked at the October 20th, 2013 article? A. It Meld have been sore. it Could have beet less. it could vary day by my a little bit. 5 O. Only a little bit over a two-year period of 20 tine? A. : did not look -- we could look at a 12 part:agar site but if you look at -- I can loot 4" D S mean, this particular r Moaned la seven different articles cm re con the 15 deicing statements. only one and so used r • 14 unien physical period. O. Okay. So the tem 'deleting le atatevents• nal cause that's what you were 19 told by Mr. Sean, d . 20 A. ng that as a way to look at it as naybe II sae r the statements that were set forth in 22 \s 1 re 0. trent,. without giving they any color. is t'a' So molly what you were leaking for right, or ChereCteritationt¶

A. The statements that dissociated kr. with illegal activities. That's what i'n look-' O. So I'm lust trying to figure out the 2 thoroughness of what you did. A. Sure. O. So 1 understand that in 2011 you looked at o ' math of log-a, activity and then divided that number by 4 30 to came up with S.000-sme-odd nutter that we looked 9 at, right? 10 A. Well, I calculated the unique daily netters. Ii Again. this particular webeite that you're painting out 12 published seven different article*. 0 0. Yes. sir, but not -- I apelegite. I net be la doing a lousy lob Of asking questions and Camonicati, IS today. I thought we had really Meowed this home. la which was that in 2011 you personally went to a env', 1? and got 30 days or hits co the Pala Beach Shiny Sheet le western -- 20 Yeah. PO ad then did the math? That's correct. 22 You didn't do that in 2013E 23 Let re -- let re -- r see where you're getttro 24 at now. 21 So, yes. Yeah, for the particular motes t.,'¶

I published multiple articles, yeah, I can't remember the . But 1 can look -- 2 exact particular date f used in this one. They had e Q. So in doing your search if you found a 1 seven different articles published on these statements. ' statement then you would stop reading the article; is I so I ignored six of them and just used one occurrence. 4 that correct?¶

$ Q. Okay. So you ignored them. 1 got it. A. I didn't say that. 1 just said I would¶

t Let's take a look at Cxhibit 9. include it if it contained the statement.¶

I Can you clarify that statement? I do'.'.. Q. Did you read the entire article once you¶

$ understand by 'I ignored them.' I identified a statement?¶

. You don't understand what? $ A. Sometimes 1 did. Sometimes I did not.¶

.0 A. Your statement. 10 Q. Okay. There you go, sir.¶

et Q. Which statement, sir? II 'Thereupon, the document referred to was¶

.2 A. The statement that said 1 ignored them. And I 12 marked Plaintiff's exhibit Number 10¶

'3 want to make sure that you understood my response 12 identifiCation./¶

'. correctly. 1$ BY MR. LYNX:¶

ts Q. I think you used the word 'ignored.' That's is Q. tot's look at 4hib 0. please, and I¶

'I what you said, you ignored -- you looked at One and :s believe this ties in r en item 23. t1 ignored six. That's what you mid. re Yea.¶

tee Okay. to Okay. SO you .55e this as an August 2012¶

:) MR. SCAROLA: The record will reflect Mat the .9 article --¶

20 testimony was. 20 A.¶

21 TUE )(MESS: Yeah.¶

,2 BY NR. LINK:¶

2. Q. That's what you said.

²⁵9SIII"¶

And this article announces that Mr. Epstein¶

24 A. So let me -- 4 S a his suit against Mr. -r correct?¶

You don't like that choice of words by A. Says: "Billionaire sex offender drops..."¶

yourself?¶

2 A. If you're focusing On that ti -¶

) well, you know what. you're right, I¶

• ignore -- I did ignore six art¶

0. That's what you sal

A. Yeah.¶

Q. Okay. SO n tre look at this article.¶

A. Sure.¶

Nem Exhibit 9 did you identify¶

:2 that met t tors of your **arch?¶

A li it would be paragraph 9.¶

ill you ague • star by the paragraph?¶

e. neas complied./¶

Cme, two, three, four, five -- the one that¶

:5 st with "Among..."¶

t A. Yes.¶

Q. Okay. My other statements in here?¶

MR. IcsemA: Could we reed that into the :$¶

!) record? Sorry.¶

20 MR. LINK: That's an exhibit in the record¶

already. I don't think we need to read it.¶

BY HR. SCARCRA:¶

Q. Were there any other statements in here?¶

A. sell, I can read the rest of the article but¶

21 t was in the Palm Beach Post?¶

22¶

"Billionaire sex offender drops mutt against¶

Scott Rothstein and one of his partners." Yes.¶

Q. Okay. Can you tell ne in this article that¶

announces that Mr. is no longer a defendant¶

the lawsuit brought by Mr. Epstein what is the phrase¶

that you isolated or located to fit your search?¶

A. Let me read the article.¶

Q. Uh-huh.¶

A. Yes. That would be the ombination of the¶

first three perogroPM.¶

O. Okay. And tern to page 2, if you will, of the¶

I2 article. This is in October -- I'm sorry, August 2012;¶

.7 Correct?¶

le Yes, August 2012.¶

IS All right. Aid d0 you See M. Scatela gym,¶

es in this article?¶

I? A. Yes.¶

le 0. And do you sou where Kr. SC•rols says:¶

I0 "Despite three years of trying, Ppatetn never produced¶

25 any evidence to shore up his allegations, said attorney¶

23 Jack Scarola."¶

3,2 Yea, I see that.¶

22 Okay. And you me Kr. Scarola in the next¶

24 paragraph Is µnoted as well that: 'An..." neaning¶

11 I2 I) Is :4 I, Is I, It 12 13 )4 15 that's a word only Mr. Scarola could get out of his myth in an articulate way -- ...claims for the purees, of trying to extort Mr. into abandoning the lawsuits on behalf of Mr. Epstein's young attorney (sic'?" Do you an that? A. II, Mr. Epstein's young victine. Young victims. Thank you. Yea. I see that. MR. SCARDLA: So that the record is clear, the first paragraph attributes a statement to me but it's not a quote. Agreed? MR. LINK: Yes, sir. NR. $CAROLA: Rut the Wend paragraph le a quote. S. LIXX: I agree. the second one la a quote. S. SChROLA: Although I would acknowledge the statement attributed to me is at least an accurate *unitary of what I said. MR. LINN: Sounds like scanning you would MR. SCAROLA: it does. MR. LIMIT I agree. BY KR. LYNX: Did you take into consideration when you we,¶

lot. LINK: I'll take that. MR. SCAROLh: I knew you would. kn. LINX: that was really good. Did you write (Sewn the next question? ?hat was excellent. net was excellent. TM WilletSS: You two have a relationship here. Kn. LINK: For 30 years. See days good; am, • days bad. Depends on how we're doing. so TEC KTINESS: Yeah, that's a long 11 relationship. it halt. SCUOLA: It's sore a t by meant. 1) KR. LINK: I think it is t by moment, la but always very such in of U gentleman. IS MS WITNESS: That's that's the way It 16 should be. 1? BY Km. LINN: 16 So let try again. Is MN. LI Did write that down? LA: No, I didn't, but it's on the tl el k t follow that. Okay. I jest looked if the article contained the¶

I looking at article, after August 2012 the 2 Mr. Stare]a had publicly denounced bitie HT I done end said to the world that Mr • Clearer any taint or allegati • Mr. Cpatein brought? 3 ti S. SCAROLA: I'm go question as cos A. I was going rain point t BY KR. L thee r had ree and that act to the kind of lost me on the it again. re are two statements in here that are I) att Mr. Scarola and one direct quote. Co you h that? is Yea, I agree. Q. And Mr. Scarola is making it clear that what Mr. Epstein filed against Mr. had absolutely no ri basis; true? A. Yes, that seems to be the point taken. Q. And did you take into consideration when doing your Internet research that on August 17th, 2012 there 2, was a public statement by Kr. lawyer that he 11 had essentially been -- ¹⁴ VAPIWID agasiatoircnatiouomo QS¶

statements that i was looking for and whether whatever • Onion, in the article. 0. Qkil g3SA941cdCE3ren cDdO • 0.10s InhOnti ranitOTOCOWnheadetaliP20 ^O41, PI, ^aCZ 01l1120 40:1400157.WthOritOhithOhat) O ttikln340HCLC 11444.74413CMC=E044141ChYDDY9DCIDO • nart..lihrj)c.thCifkatigsp s g7 $4-3 12 Cf3 tIMIZIOCILIZanYr crolmatchocoNo • OrgraCt:PI:kNeD1Md(rahip:Irafrnminrjrappipmcomag* CID MC::Edwarde:WaS:diffeMIAC:AfteC140OarOIX:madaMple OM litltements:pl:201tthaphC'pl'43ZZ IS 017 raj I) Ca plerayouvitayoug:,esearch:OICYco:,4telyilmie qB iany:readetCbati3clballMeaeneettbe=anatImahal) 42 iyOU:SitecalOcOCreierS3/ 4.3 am Pell ig Q. Can you quantify the total number of people ni that have reed any one singular article about n Hr• lust one article out of all of the c!--- 22 that you have identified? 23 to Ts A. I don't understand quantify. Yeah, yOu found 104 articles -- A. Correct.¶

O. Ea:kightp catCYCSOYICAtilY220Cgralldraba0¶

o petgally:yead:pne:pt:Ehe:IkEDSIUltleAll¶

ft CIOC.E000 2•11007:Seld3¶

4 Q. Okay.¶

7 A. Well, beyond me.¶

6 Q. Well, you read them es part of your¶

P assignment.¶

A. That's correct.¶

▪ Q. Row many hours did it take you to locate all of the articles?¶

tl A. I can ballpark it.¶

12 O. That's fair.¶

13 A. 17.25.¶

14 O. That's a ballpark?¶

Is 16 A. Yea. Wavle there's also Woe Other stuff going On there.¶

Ie MR. SCAROLA: Bey a scientist at bellperking.¶

Q. Re's better than you.¶

O By MR. LINK:¶

)3 Q. 17.2S? You can't get it a little tighter than )1 that? That's as good as it gets?¶

12 I had to eliminate sone times that I wasn't¶

)2 actually looting for articles.¶

14 Q. 17.25. And how many hours In total have you ,2 spent in developing your opinion that you're providing¶

I today?¶

A to developing the Opinion?¶

O. Op through today. I ass¶

• 0. -- you can't talk a¶

6 A. Yeah. I said I bill . And then, you¶

n knOW, 7 did -- read r•-read my report and stuff I for deposition. so it three or four sore hours.¶

Q. 20¶

thing like that.¶

ng, okay.¶

12 Otl charge how ouch an hour?¶

i/¶

All right. Do you have any other opinions¶

5 t 're working on in this case?¶

Ii A. to this case, no.¶

Q. And you have worked as an expert for¶

0 Mr. before; correct?¶

• A. Yes.¶

▪ Q. in what vise was that, sir?¶

II That was the v. Maxwell case.¶

12 Again, it was a little -- I don't know. Yeah,¶

11 the whole lawyering, how you lawyers handle this. I A, don't understand.¶

with him on another -- on that case.¶

• 0. Yell, it'a a Case that you list with¶

• lfr. tcheard'• ninon In your rumen isn't It?¶

• A. Yes. that's what I mean. Hokindof¶

) originally retained no but then went to another law t fire, so I )use didn't understand.¶

7 Q. Explain tome What you moon by that, Please.¶

▪ SOW. originally retained you and then what f happened?¶

se ss A. Then a different law tire -- 7 kind of dealt with a lawyer alnoat exclusively from • different tirt.¶

12 So, you know, I don't tnow -- I listed both.¶

I) O. All right. And what wor asked .:, 14 in that case?¶

IS A. In that particul arr ca as caked to --¶

la 16 Mb. Maxwell called and sorbed to 17 look up the dissent particular statement: 16 on-line.¶

Is O. So you ntially doing the seem work in 20 that co that you're doing in this case¶

21¶

2, than the statements being different. 2 I very niter. And there were scam other things h.¶

IS S fri O. l'n sorry, I didn't understand you.¶

is ticular case.¶

What I'm saying there were a tow other thing:¶

7 but the basic process and procaine were the same.¶

Q. Okay. And the statement that you were provide¶

in the surveil case, was that -- that you were suogosed 5 to research, was that provided to you by Mr.¶

h. Not by Mr.¶

By hie co-counsel?¶

• A. Another lawyer involved in the case, yes.¶

10 MR. LINK; All right. I don't have any of Se' Questions.¶

Jack.¶

Is CROSS EXAMINATION¶

12 BY MR. SCAPOLA:¶

It You were asked questions about articles the,¶

is (puts] re and whether you had non any articles that¶

IS quoted defense counsel. to you recall that?¶

I? A. Yes, I recall that.¶

Is 0. Go beet to Exhibit Moron 9. if you would, at please.¶

20 Yes, sir.¶

ts 0. In this exhibit there is in paragraph 4 a 22 direct twee attributed to so --¶

22 Yes.¶

24 -- correct?¶

22 I Me that.¶

Q. It says, quote: "This has been a long time coming, and we're extremely anxious to have the I opportunity, for the first time, to lay out in detail 4 the terrible nature of Jeffrey Cpatein's serial abuse of dozens and dozens of children," unquote; correct? A. Correct.¶

0. It's not possible to make a determination from 4 what's included in this article whether that quote was ) from a statement mode in court or out of court; is it?

A. Mot to me, no. tt I2 going down two more paragraphs it reads: "At fI • calendar call on Friday, told lawyers for both Ire sides that he would have to specially set the trial Io because of several factors: its estimated length, 'Mr. Epstein's criminal issues.' Porai-schese allegations surrounding former boss, and the expected a length of the time it will take to select jurors."¶

:) I want you to assume that the •=l• that is 20 referenced as is described in 1, 2, 3, 4 -- the fifth 71 paragraph is Circuit Judge David IIII. Okay? 2 Okay.¶

23 Q. The next quote that appears is • quote from 24 the Judge himself, quote: "'With Mr. Scarola doing the 2I voir dire, it's going to take • long time to get the • r one of Mr. rpetoin's lawyers, according to to,,¶

S 4 a That would be • tabor,. yea. Or at least after the scheduling session? A. Yeah. O. another the conversation took place In the coartroeft after the court proceeding or outside the courtnmoe, this report --¶

? Yeah. a -- suggests that the lawyer was speaking to a the press after the court proceeding.¶

10 Md It goes on t0 say, quote: "'So it's going 11 to take a lot of prospective jurors to find somebody It that doesn't already have an opinion in rd to son., IS of the people involved.'" Correct?¶

it A. Correct. IS 0. Okay. Then we have t ific paragraph 16 that you identified as t qualified this 17 article for inclus correct?¶

Is A. Cor 19 0. Md if d0iin to the bottom of the per. 20 we then following state:rant, one paragraph cr: SI Coin's attorney, declined to say 22 ent will be in the courtrcon and/or r wit: testify."¶

2\he Then we have a direct quote attributed to¶

°IS "¶

on the defense. you SO w0 know that the Judge le + :- we'll rake decisions based upon what the plaintiffs do.' said. 'Men you're have to¶

2 ) well; correct? Haddad I the process,' Sterols said." article. Fred Haddad. quote: ''We're defending this and¶

4 Ilh-huh, correct. 4 see what the offense does first. The trial will be very 1 And it is probably interesting. There are a lot of legal issues as well, i MR. MR: And I IWO abatement by Jul* factual issues.'" r IM Did : reed that accurately? a MR. SCAROLA: h u and Judge IIII at, A. it seemed accurate to re, yes. ) likely a to in t regard. Okay. So toeing back to a (petition that was¶

tO BY KR. asked of you by mr. Link earlier, he asked to whether It Q a only there's some court proceeding II there were quotes from Mr. Epstein's lawyers in any of lo atonable assumption? la blest this one article. two of ter. gpotein's lawyers ,• Reasonable assumption based on those two 14 were both speaking to the press outside the courtroom; pa apps, yeah. 15 correct?¶

on at which the Judge made this I? the press article., we have now confined that in at¶

ti Q. Then the next paragraph reads, quote: "The 16 A. Correct. 4 one of the Epstein's attorneys, after the la articles that you were able to identify to be sure tps• scheduling session.' 19 there was a statement included In each of those 104¶

people involved are pretty well-known,' said Cheater il O. Okay. Did you actually read each of the ,(4 of Mr. Epstein's lawyers was speaking to the press 24 Q. All right. So Mr. Link has gone through • few¶

21 Do you see that? 20 articles that linked I l I l to participation in, I A. Yes, I see that. 21 Scott Rothstein's massive Penal scheme, :2 0. So, we know, assuming the accuracy of this 22 Yes. : reed either the entire article or op I report, that Kr. Epstein's loners were speaking or one 23 to the point where I round this statecent. 21 outside the courtroom; correct? 2S or those, and :is not sure how he selected the ones that¶

he selected, but he's gone through a few. But if we 2 were to go through each of these 104 articles you would ) be able to identify a specific statement that associated 4 as a participant in this massive Ponri 5 Sc)...., is that correct?¶

That's correct, I did it.¶

O. You have reached the conclusion that that¶

4 information was disseminated to an audience of over 9..¶

million people; correct?¶

A. Correct.¶

O. Did you come to a conclusion as to the¶

,2 likelihood of whether the actual number of individuals¶

,1 to whom that statement was disseminated exceeded 9.6¶

.4 million people?¶

,1 MR. LIMN: Object to the form.¶

tt Well. yes. as¶

:1 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Before you answer¶

the question, what's the problem with the form?¶

:1 MR. LIMB: It assumes that -- the way you¶

20 asked that readers actually saw the statement¶

It versus it being disseminated in the web page that¶

22 people touched. Its testified he could not identify¶

2. who in fact or the number that saw the statement.

24 MR. SCRROLA: Okay. Well, I think you've¶

21 mischaracterized my question, but just to be aural¶

I 9.645.542. The first Is that obviously I couldn't¶

2 locate all the articles by the tire I filed soy 414011.¶

I So there's certainly articles out there that 7 haven',¶

4 located by the tire I submitted the report. I only¶

looked at on-Rae sources. I didn't deal with prints or¶

, broadcasts or anything like that. I didn't --¶

Cp. So, for wimple -- and I apologise for¶

. Interrupting you. But one or the websites that we've¶

1 particularly focused en is the Pain Beach Deily News,¶

10 also phone as The shiny sheet. But what you looted at¶

II were electronic accesses to their we/salted correct?¶

12 That Is correct.¶

IS You did not include the f individual,¶

14 who subecribe to that newspape S livered to¶

IS their hove; correct?¶

IS That's our .0 de those.¶

17 O. You didn' number of tines that¶

le people went to t it local, re all store and bought a¶

49 copy of The Shiny tl tit's not included in your¶

20 calcula¶

21¶

22 7 e sane would be true with regard to each¶

S : o We it.* which alp he. a corresponding hard¶

" ite • re. the Palm Beach Post. the Sun-Sentinel, the¶

Alk nuttier.. the Palm Beach Deily Hews, the --¶

4¶

let se make sure that I ask the gmes n the war 2 I intended it to be answered.¶

1 BY MR. SCARCER:¶

O. Can you toll us whet on you¶

5 reached that these statements re die Ni WO to an¶

audience of 9.6 million people ervative --¶

MR. LIMB: Objection.¶

a BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

's conservative -- very conservative¶

11 number in my report.¶

rib* for W benefit of the jurors, if¶

U /,■ ion, why it is your opinion that the more¶

million number to which you have testified is a¶

:5 c ative assessment of the number of people to whom¶

•I these statements were disseminated?¶

:$¶

20¶

21 refer to my report¶

22 O. By all means.¶

24 Conservative approach to the dissemination number¶

2$ calculation. So likely much -- much more than¶

Okay.¶

MR. LIM: Object to the form. A. I think to address this properly if T can just¶

-- as the best way to address it.¶

Well, I had like 12 reasons why I took a very¶

a A. Yes. I also didn't include statements in¶

Miami Herald, The New York Tires. or any or the other¶

periodicals that have both hard copies and wcbsite¶

access; correct?¶

A. Correct.¶

Okay. So you were describing the reasons why¶

your number of distributions is conservative and I¶

interrupted you. So pick m0, if you would, please.¶

9 book Filthy Rich that was distributed, written by¶

40 kr. Smes Patterson.¶

II 0. Okay. There was an exhibit narked that rad:¶

ir rrrrrrrrr to that book. That was rshibit Weber 4. A.¶

I? while this exhibit rakes reference to the book, it 1s¶

44 notoneof those articles that contained -- Exhibit¶

as weber 4 is not an article that contained an express¶

44 reference to the relationship between _ al and the Rothstein Prat scheme: correct?¶

is That's correct.¶

10 0. But do you know whether the book itself¶

20 contains express references to allegations that =MI¶

21 was a knowing participant in the Manzi scheme,¶

22 Yes, I know it does.¶

SS 0. Okay. But you didn't include any of those¶

24 James Patterson books that were sold in hard copy, that¶

25 got distributed through electronic means or wound 45 as¶

THE VIDEOGRAFTER; The time is 11:04. We're now going off the record. iThereuporn at 11:04 p.m. a recess was taken until 11:11 a.m., ater which the deposition continued as follows:)¶

TRY VIDECGRAPIIER: The tine is 11:11. We're back on the record. This is the beginning of Tap* 2. BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

Q. At the point at which we took our break you were describing for the benefit of the Jury why the more than 9.6 million number is • conservative estimate of the number of people to whom the statements that you \ have identified were distributed, acknowledging that¶

I whether they read them or not is not sone 2 YOU'n looked at, but these were peopl tO ) were distributed. 4 SO why -- why elm d the number¶

1 to be a Conservative number? A. Yes. I didn't inclu ace-to-face, dissemination of peopl glking about the statements. 7 didn't include any pri ) e-mail, and a like t in* correspondence, like¶

*Mere then likely lates that had the II sate no longer access. And, actually, r rrn of those. i just couldn't get the ctivities, a few things like that. So elude those.¶

Of these 14 sites that contained the article, I only included traffic for SS percent of them because the traffic number for the other sites -- the other 43 sites I just didn't feel comfortable that the numbers were valid. So of the /4 sites -- of that 9.6 million plus, even though the article -- I know the article was posted on the 14 sites, I only included the traffic for 50 percent of those sites. :$ 2 1¶

0. And why did you consider the other traffic numbers not to be reliable? What distinguished those from those that you felt were sufficiently reliable? ) 24 7)

I audio books? pone of that's included, correct? 2 Correct. 1 And obviously you don't know how many times 4 people who bought that book loaned it out to their $ spouses, their friends, and neighbors, so that they I could read it, correct? A. Correct. 0. Okay. I have been given a notice that we ere almost about to run out of tape, so we'll break right there. We'll take a short break; let them change the tape.¶

A. As I mentioned -- talked about this in ny report. They were tyPICally sites that were very. vc large or very small. So like, you know, sore the larger sites, It's¶

that -- maybe : , 11 give you • good example here. Like the PressAeader, for example, that is a site that presents a IOC of articles from A lot of different newspapers. And so the traffic numbers that I was getting were, you know, very inflated I felt, so I did not include those ranters.¶

On the other sites, there are • lot of blog Si sites and stuff like that from 'India that didn't 11 get a lot of traffic. Again. I fe those 14 numbers were not reliable or I IS did not include those.¶

ilS1¶

do could be at • different site. follow the link 21 didn't include sites that had articles 22 't have the statements but a link to en A 14 t t had the state,tnts. de unless it *Cies, exactly in the article, : didn't include it.¶

16 o. Okay. Contim d. describing -- 17 Yes. le your assertion that the 9.6 19 million dollar n excuse re, the 9.6 nillieo 20 number native number.¶

2 and could actually see it, but : didn't include those. Many of these sites publish multiple articic 1 on waltiple different days that contains the atatere-t-4 And there is an aspect of return readership. So 1 S didn't want to double-count traffic, so just to make it 6 very conservative even if they published *even articles 1 or five, I only counted it one tire. So 2 didn't coi-i the multiple days.¶

9 And then also search results. Some of the 10 queries that I wee using, you could *Omit the gem ard 11 you could see the actual statements in the search if results. You didn't need to go to the site. 12 So. like co my report co page 21 7 give sere 14 rumples there that just enter • query and you see the IS actual statement* In the search results. You don't even I6 need to go to the site to -- I mhen, you don't even need II to technically read the article. You just like search le and type in the query.¶

10 0. Old you take into account In any way that 20 multiple individuals ray be accessing the sites 21 simultaneously? Come on over rare and take a look at ay 22 monitor and sea what's being reported about Brad¶

22 24 A. No, : did not include those. 25 Q. And what about the private forwarding or '7 A. Yes. 0. Did you utilize methodologlea that are generally accepted within your area of expertise as accurate means by which to reach the conclusions that yOu've reached?¶

:4 :4 ti A. Yes. 0. AM are the opinions that you have expressed, both In your written report and In your sworn testimony today. opinions that you hold to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty within your area of expertise?¶

7 20 Yee. MR. SCAROLT: Thank you. I have no further questions.¶

22 23 24 MR. LIM dust a couple. REDIRECT EXAMINATICN BY MR. LINK:¶

2. Take a loot at Exhibit 9 that Mr. Sterols w

webalte information, did you tate that into account at 2 all?¶

As I mentioned, no, I didn't do any e-mail or 4 private forwarding, or anything like that.¶

Q. to conducting this work, did you rely upon I sources that are generally relied upon and considered to ' be credible and authoritative within your area of • expertiae?¶

:0 A. Co please point to anywhere in this¶

It attic] attorneys said anything Ss?¶

• , let me lust loot in the article. I • quote.¶

:5 All right. And Mr. Scarola pointed out three different statements. One by Mr. and two by Mr. Haddad.¶

:$ 20 And is there anything in what Mr. Or Mr. Haddad maid to the press that fits one of the search parameter* you were looking for?¶

77 Free those statements? Yea, sir, that you were searching for.¶

'1 A. No. I thought that my question was -- you mean in tern of the article or in terms of the statements from those lawyers?¶

SV¶

asking you about, please. Yea, ear.¶

It's The Shiny Sheet art 0th.¶

2013. Do you have that in fr Yes. sir.

Mr. Scuola pointed o o of places whore Mr. restein's I s were either quoted or had a statement attributed to orrect?¶

0. Ho. the statements ikon the lawyers. Mr. Scarola wont through in a painstaking way to show yo the three areas In this article to 4 Mr. Ppetein's :ay/yore. And $41 asking you Sr Mr. kpateln'S lawyers waft any Staten et about 6 Mr. that would have triggered a hit In year 7 search results?

a A. Hot that I ace, no. 9 Can you point to any article that you reviewed 10 that contains a staterent -- a quote by Mr. Epstein's II lawyer that would have triggered a hit on your search sr request? 12 A. Okay. again. 2 was lust for the 14 particuler statenents. 2 diets' ate i t was a IS quote Iron a lawyer, but I don' all¶

36 Q. And do you Cron Kr. Paste-- 17 hireelf in any of aril a that you reviewed, 16 all 104 that you old Mr. Scarola that you read the 19 entire article, t hod quote from Mr. mpetein that 20 would h r scare' request? Ii t answer this, i lust want to clarify.¶

2e \ • licre 2 • 0 read it up to O 4 point where 1 found 04 . but I don't recall a staterent from air eptein. -- I said that I either read the entire¶

Do you renerber seeing a press release by ` Me. Epstein related to Fe. in any way?¶

A. A press release tram Sr. Apatein? 4 O. Tee, vir.¶

A. I don't recall a press release !ma¶

Kr. Epstein. MR. LINK: Okay. I have no other questions.¶

MR. SCAROIA: And t have no further questions. MR. LINK: Thank you.¶

Is MX. etAxiMAI We will reed. 11 SAE VIDEOGRAPNER: the tire is 11:21. me $4¶

12 off the record. This cultic** today's deposition. Is ifnereupen, the taking of the deposition wee 14 concluded at 11:21 a.sl IS¶

IS sr Is it¶

1 EXCEPT FOR THE CORRECTIONS MADE
2 HEREIN ON THE ERRATA SHEET BY ME,
3 I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE AND
4 ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT. FURTHER
5 DEPONENT SAYETH NOT.¶

6 _____
7 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN¶

8 STATE OF FLORIDA)
9 ) SS:
10 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE)¶

11 Sworn and subscribed to before me
12 this _____ day of _____, 2017.
13 PERSONALLY KNOWN _____ OR I.D. _____¶

14 _____
15 Notary Public in and for the
16 State of Florida at Large
17 My Commission Expires:¶

1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA)
4 ) SS
5 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE)
6
7 I, the undersigned authority, certify that
8 DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN personally appeared before me and
9 was duly sworn.
10
11 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day
12 of December, 2017.¶

13 _____
14 ILIANA LUGO
15 Notary Public - State of Florida
16 Commission No. DD733630
17 Commission Expires: 11/08/2019¶

1 ERRATA SHEET
2 IN RE: Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al.
3 Case No. 50-2009CA04080DXXXXXBAG
4 DEPO OF: DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN 12/1/17
5 DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER ANY CHANGES HERE
6 Page-Line # Change Reason¶

Page-Line #	Change	Reason
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18 STATE OF FLORIDA)
19 ) SS
20 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE)¶

21 Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I
22 have read my deposition transcript, and it is true and
23 correct subject to any changes in form or substance
24 entered here.¶

25 Date _____ Signature _____¶

1 REPORTER'S DEPOSITION CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA)
4 ) SS
5 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE)¶

6 I, Iliana Lugo, Court Reporter, certify that I
7 was authorized to and did stenographically report the
8 deposition of DR. BERNARD J. JANSEN; that a review of
9 the transcript was requested; and that the transcript is
10 a true and correct record of my stenographic notes.
11 I further certify that I am not a relative,
12 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties,
13 parties' attorney, or counsel connected with the action,
14 nor am I financially interested in the action.
15 DATED this 4th day of December, 2017.¶

16 _____
17 ILIANA LUGO, Court Reporter¶

/ 3 4 December 5, 2017 OR. REARM)) J. JANSEN c/o Searcy, Donny, Startle, Barnhart L Shipley, P.A. Attn: Jack Scarola, Req. I 2139 Pals Beach Lakes noulevard Rest Palm Beach, Florida 33409 4 in Re: Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. 4 Case No.: 50-2009CA040000/0003IRAG Repo of: Dr. Bernard J. Jansen Taken on: December 1, 2017 I of pages: SS Reid Until: January 6, 2018 ) Dear Dr. Jansen: )0 This letter is to advise you that the transcript of your deposition taken in the above-referenced 1! cause has been completed and is awaiting your reading and signing. , ') Please contact our office to make arrangenents to real and sign your deposition transcript. :4 Our information is as follows: 1) Pals Reach Reporting 1665 Pals Reach Laker, acuity°, . :4 Suite 1001 Nest Pals Beach, Florida 33401 t .1 O 'S Telophene (561) 471-7995 lf the reeding and signing has not been complete) prior to January 4, 2010, we shall conclude that you have waived the reading and signing of the :4 I, transcript. 21 Your precept attention to this matter is appreciated. 2: Sincerely, 2/ :, !liana Lugo, Court Reporter cc Scott J. Link, Esq., Esq. :4 Jack SCarola, Rag. 2t¶

A 4Isy¶

O ?Sire tlir¶

EXHIBIT F¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,¶

vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
and [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED],
individually,
Defendants.¶

VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF [REDACTED] [REDACTED]¶

May 15th, 2013
10:00 A.M. - 12:20 P.M.¶

401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL¶

Stenographically Reported By:
WENDY [REDACTED], RPR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Empire Legal Support, Inc.
Fort Lauderdale Office
Phone: (954)241-1010¶

APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY(S) FOR MR. EPSTEIN:
TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE
Tonja Haddad, PA
315 SE 7th St Ste 301
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333013158
Phone: 954.467.1223
Fax: 954.337.3716
E-Mail: Tonja@tonjahaddad.com
FRED HADDAD, ESQUIRE
Fred Haddad PA
1 Financial Plz Ste 2612
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333940061
Phone: 954.467.6767
Fax: 954.467.3599
E-Mail: Haddadfin@aol.com
JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
Atterbury Goldberger Et Al
250 S Australian Ave Ste 1400
West Palm Beach, Florida 334015015
Phone: 561.659.8300
Fax: 561.835.8691
E-Mail: Jgoldberger@agwpa.com
ATTORNEY FOR BRADLEY EDWARDS:
WILLIAM [REDACTED] ESQUIRE
Scarcy Denney Scarola Et Al
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
West Palm Beach, Florida 334096601
Phone: 561.686.6300
Fax: 561.684.5816
E-Mail: Wbk@scarcylaw.com¶

ALSO PRESENT: JEFF EPSTEIN, PLAINTIFF
DEBRA FEIN, LAW CLERK¶

1 Videotape Deposition taken before Wendy [REDACTED],
2 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in
3 and for the State of Florida at Large, in the above
4 cause.¶

5 ---
6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video
7 record. Today's date is May 15th, 2013. The time
8 is 10:17 a.m. This is the video deposition of
9 [REDACTED] taken in the matter of Jeffrey
10 Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Case
11 No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG.¶

12 We're located at 401 East Las Olas Boulevard,
13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The court reporter is
14 Wendy [REDACTED], the videographer is Anthony Estevez,
15 both with Empire Legal.¶

16 Would counsel please state their appearances
17 for the record.¶

18 MR. [REDACTED]: William [REDACTED], Scarcy Denney Scarola
19 Barnhart & Shipley for Mr. [REDACTED].¶

20 MR. HADDAD: Fred Haddad on behalf of Jeff
21 Epstein.¶

22 MR. GOLDBERGER: Jack Goldberger, Atterbury,
23 Goldberger & Weiss on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.¶

24 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Tonja Haddad Coleman on
25 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.¶

1 produced this time record. (With respect to reputation, 2 (I believe that over the course of the lasthi ),, 3 !have done a pretty darn good job resurrecting any damage. 4 (that was done to my reputation in this imnity. contr¶

5 Q Well, let's — let's start with that. You 6 don't -- you never had a reputation damage, did you? 7 MR. : Objection, form. 8 BY MR. HADDAD:¶

9 Q Okay. What damage, if any, did you initially 10 have done to your reputation by the filing of a lawsuit 11 against you that suggested that you were so aggressive 12 as a lawyer someone was going to sue you?¶

13 A No, the lawsuit that was filed against me — 14 MR. Object to form, argumentative.¶

15 A The lawsuit that was filed — 16 MR. HADDAD: I was paying a compliment. 17 MR.= Yes. 18 Go ahead.¶

19 A The lawsuit that was filed against me said 20 that I was part of some racketeering scheme, said that I 21 was involved in a Ponzi scheme, that I was 22 co-conspirator of Scott Rothstein's and that I was 23 committing fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. A 24 bunch of.criminal actions were alleged against me. In 25 fact, I think the complaint was entirely crimes that I¶

1 had committed as a lawyer, which is the exact opposite 2 of the type of reputation that you want as a lawyer. 3 With that being said, that complaint, the 4 various motions making those allegations about S some form of co-conspirator in a Ponzi sche 6 repeatedly filed and stated on the record anti 7 hallways over at the bankruptcy court, because e 8 lawyer who was anybody in South Florida had something to 9 do with the bankruptcy proceedings over at the 10 bankruptcy court. So I had to go over there 11 continuously and fend off these lawyers who believed 12 that there must be some merit to it, because somebody 13 who has a lot of money is hiring lawyers who have a 14 pretty good reputation to say these things, there's got 15 to be something to it. 16 BY MR. HADDAM—)¶

17 Q Name one case in which you were impleaded 18 because of your alleged involvement with Scott 19 Rothstein?¶

20 A I did not lose a single client. 21 Q Name one — no, name one person who impleaded 22 you, one other person in bankruptcy court, whether It be 23 the clawback scheme, whether it be Shears, whatever the 24 hell he calls what he did, whatever you call any of that 25 stuff; name one person that impleaded you or asked¶

you —joined you as party or a -- 1¶

A It didn't happen. Q — defendant or anything? A That did not happen. 2 3 4¶

Q Name one person, other than this lawsuit, which well get into later, other than this lawsuit, what newspaper article, what Daily Review article, what any article accused you of being involved in the Scott Rothstein debacle? 5 6 7 8¶

A I can't recite them off of my head. Q Is there any? 10 11¶

A I believe that newspaper articles were written when the lawsuit was filed about me and Scott being accused of being some to-comparator ina Ponzi scheme, yes. 12 13 14 15¶

Q All right. There.were newspaper articles written quoting a pleading as opposed to someone suggesting you arkttittgeolminal act; is that correct? 16 17 18 19¶

A I don't know thedistinction that you are trying to make. 20 21¶

Q We'll worry about that later, I'm just asking you; do you know whether or not it was someone quoting a 4newspaper-- a — a — a legal pleading, or was It a Indivridual making an accusation that you were a 22 23 24 25¶

44S, 'gb¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q Pm asking you, was there anything other was there any person, reporter, anyone, any of the people you had all of these thousands of e-mails with, anyone who suggested that you were a criminal, other than the pleading filed that suggested because of Rothstein's inclusion of your cases as part of the basis for his Ponzi scheme that you were involved, other than that lawsuit?¶

12 A People believed that I was involved.¶

13 14 15 Q Who expressed that to you? You're a young lawyer, you're in the courthouse every day or almost every day, you're around town, correct?¶

16 A Yes.¶

17 18 19 20 Q You go to different restaurants. Name one person that came tip to you and said, I can't believe you are not in jail, you are a Ponzi scheme or you arc anything, name one person --¶

21 22 23 24 25 A There were lawyers over at the bankruptcy court, when I had to sit there listening to the things that were being said, that told me, you are going to be a target of mine given this information that we - that — that is being told to us by Jeffrey Epstein and¶

criminal?¶

A The legal pleading made an accusation that I was a criminal and that was reported on.¶

EMPIRE LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. (954) 241-1010¶

7 (Pages 25 to 28)¶

1 BY MR. HADDAD:¶

2 Q Well, let me ask you this: In --¶

3 A (Do I believe that right now my reputation is
4 better than it has been at any time in the past, yes!¶

5 Q All right. And as a matter of fact, since the
6 Rothstein case, you're now included, probably one of the
7 youngest guys there is, in Best Lawyers in America,
8 correct?¶

9 A Probably.¶

10 Q All right. There are not many guys that have
11 been practicing 11 years to be included in that.¶

12 A I agree.¶

13 Q And that is 100 percent for old people like
14 Goldberger, for the most part. You are included in that
15 based upon peer review and nothing else?¶

16 A That's true.¶

17 Q You --¶

18 A I mean, I don't ac -- actually don't know the
19 answer to that. I -- if you are saying that's what it
20 is, it might be.¶

21 Q Did you solicit anybody to become in that?¶

22 A No.¶

23 Q Did you receive a letter saying you have been
24 nominated for Best Lawyers in America?¶

25 A I don't think so.¶

1 Q No, you just got a notice one day that you --¶

2 A Right.¶

3 Q -- are included, correct?¶

4 A Right, that's true.¶

5 Q Out of the whole world, out of thousands of
6 lawyers practicing law 10 years, you are notified, hey,
7 you are one of the best lawyers in America for what you
8 do?¶

9 A Right.¶

10 Q Okay. Now, you also are one of the top 40
11 lawyers under 40, correct?¶

12 A Right.¶

13 Q You are 37 years old?¶

14 A Correct.¶

15 Q And you are considered one of the top trial
16 lawyers in Florida?¶

17 A Right.¶

18 Q There is a group called the Top 100 Trial
19 Lawyers in America, correct?¶

20 A I think so.¶

21 Q That's part of what you are in?¶

22 A Okay.¶

23 Q Yeah, they have the top 100 trial lawyers for
24 old guys like Goldberger, Scarola, part of his firm and
25 all those old people, correct?¶

1 A Maybe I should pay more attention to those
2 things. I don't know about all those old people.¶

3 Q Well, you do have -- I look at it from what
4 you do with them. Come on Brad, you have an ego,
5 everybody does. At any rate, you are considered in the
6 top 40 under 40, in that group, correct?¶

7 A Right.¶

8 Q And have you ever looked on the Web site for
9 that group to see the type of lawyers that are included
in that?¶

10 A No.¶

11 Q Okay. And you have that distinction of being
12 included and you promote it with your -- as most lawyers
13 would, correct?¶

14 A Personally, I don't, but I know that my law
15 firm does. I mean, we do have a PR firm for our law
16 firm.¶

17 Q [REDACTED] is that who does all of that stuff?¶

18 A Yeah.¶

19 Q I mean, this is about a month's worth. All
20 right.¶

21 A You looked at a lot more than I have.¶

22 Q I have to do something to earn the money I
23 make.¶

24 A Thank goodness, right.¶

1 Q Now, you are also -- there is another service
2 called AVVO, are you familiar with that?¶

3 A Yes.¶

4 Q All right. And that's another unsolicited --
5 out of the top 40 under 40, you can't buy your way into
6 that one either, you didn't know you were getting that,
7 correct?¶

8 A That's true.¶

9 Q You get a notice, hey, you have just been
10 included in all of this stuff, whether you like it or
11 not, you are considered one of the top lawyers in
12 Florida.¶

13 A That's true.¶

14 Q Okay. Then you have AVVO where people can
15 arrest -- arrest, I see arrest records, two secrets
16 under your name here. I guess that is part of the
17 advertising that goes with having a Web site or
18 something. Five [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing attorneys
19 recognizes the best lawyers in America, that is pretty
20 good for a bunch of young lawyers, yeah?¶

21 A Yeah.¶

22 Q And AVVO, another one. Do you participate in
23 their promotion, AVVO, they promote lawyers I think, do
24 you participate in that at all?¶

25 A Not really.¶

11 (Pages 41 to 44)¶

EMPIRE LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.
(954) 241-1010¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me let you finish your question. A Donald Baker, is that the — MS. HADDAD EMAN: No, it's different. THE WITNESS: M, different. BY MR. HADDAD: Q M, you got sued twice? A Apparently. Q All right. And then did -- let me ask you about the -- I had it right here. A 1 convicted some guy, he went to prison and then sued the judge and every -- all the police and everything else. MR. GOLDBERGER: Here you go. MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: This guy's name Is different. MR. HADDAD: Yeah, Shaarbay, Sharbasom. I guess that must be — MR. GOLDBERGER: Spell it. MR. HADDAD: the Arab guy. S-H-A-A-R-B-A-Y versus — A News to me. BY MR. HADDAD: Q — various persons. Were you ever served with a lawsuit? Among the persons sued was — A No.¶

1 Q Pete Weinstein, Michael Gates, Finkelstein, 2 Satz, Dan Callahan, Brad =. 3 A No. I don't recognize that person's name. I 4 have never been served with that lawsuit, to my 5 recollection. 6 Q To your recollection, okay. 7 A No. 8 Q All right. But you said there est r 9 one, who else sued you? 10 A Donald Baker sued me and Mike Satz and Michael 11 Gates and all of the Hollywood Police Department. 12 Q And what happened with that case? 13 A It was dismissed. 14 Q All right. Would those predate the time that 15 you were sued by Mr. P4stein? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Now, tell me how — 18 A Well, don't know about this new one that you 19 just told me about it, it may have been yesterday for 20 all I know. 21 Q .right. 22 A I am unaware of it. 23 Q Emotional distress, embarrassment, mental 24 anguish, humiliation, I will start with those, because 25 we know loss of reputation and standing in the community¶

1 doesn't exist correct? 2 MR. =: Objection. 3 BY MR. HADDAD: 4 Q You concede that? 5 MR. Objection, argumentative. 6 BY MR. HADDAD: 7 Q Well, would you concede — never mind, we went 8 through it already. 9 A Yeah, we — we talked about this. 10 Q I understand. Can you detail for me the 11 emotional distress, embarrassment, mental anguish and 12 humiliation -- 13 A Okay. 14 Q —that you have? 15 A Where I was begin 16 Q Yes, sir. 17 A — when we wen talk dbout reputation. I 18 do believe that I have always racked with the utmost 19 honest, integrity. And when a lawsuit was filed against 20 me accusing me of being dishonest and being a criminal 21 or — to truncate this — and I had to continue to go to 22 court and see lawyers who, for a period of time, and I 23 do believe that once the case was dismissed against me, 24 that window closed, but for a period of time they ²⁵f %ISieved, /the allegations against me. I think that there¶

sS, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was probably a point in time, based on some of the e-mails that I have seen, that your co-counsel Tonja believed that, which in terms of hurt feelings type of things, yeah, that -- that wasn't — that wasn't something that I appreciated either. But having to be in a courtroom where lawyers believed that I had done these things that I had not done, it was humiliating. Now there is another aspect of it which I consider to be much more significant, because as we've discussed, the case was dismissed against me and I do feel that separate and apart from any involvement that I have had prosecuting cases against Jeffrey Epstein,(0 (have done a good job of resurrecting my reputation fap the point in time where people initially believed, hey) where there is smoke there is fire or something t his guy must be guilty of something.iliultl asmy perception of things and that's a reasonable perception based on what was filed. Q All right. And I don't want — I am not going to be argumentative with you, obviously, but based upon what the entirely of what the Ponzi scheme is, just being involved in it, just being in that firm with your cases there would give that perception to people, wouldn't you agree? A No. I think that most lawyers escaped fairly¶

EXHIBIT G¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND. FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CASE 502009dA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and J. individually,¶

DefendantS,¶

A fr, lis" i VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION N OF¶

.¶

VO IE OF II¶

110 - 250¶

( 2.) October 10th, 2013¶

10:00 A.M. - 2:30 P.M.¶

4_;SD'.1 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL¶

Stenographically Reported By: WENDY RPR Notary Public, State ol Florida Empire Legal Support, Inc Fort Laudetdale Office. Phone: 9.54)241-1010¶

EMPIRE LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.. (954) ,11-10.1.0

¶

1 are you claiming?¶

2 MR. : You asked the same question last 3 time.¶

4 MR. HADDAD: I don't remember it. I thought 5 the last time we said you -- taking time away from 6 your family and that stuff for economica¶

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. : He went -- but he went o great detail, as you might recall, where t 1 ed about the fact that, you know, he would to the -- he would go over to the Courtho e nd lawyers would look at him, and his rep i. was -- was impacted by that and what -- wt1 h was truncate that lat able to do to¶

14 MR. HADDA P( Yo¶

15 BY MR. HADDAD:¶

16 Q Do y&i s111 maintain that stuff?¶

17 A (As (said then,)(have I done a aood job at)¶

18 19 (resurrecting whatever damage was done?) (Yes,)al(did) Is there) - fs there¶

20 21 22 23 ''I12, What was the -- what was the impact to you fr m supposed -- and I don't mean that pejoratively, damage to your reputation by being sued for being with Rothstein?¶

24 25 A Uh, what -- for being falsely accused of committing crimes I didn't accuse by Epstein.¶

2 3 4 5 6 If newspaper articles that were printed after the filing of the claim against me is something that would support that, then I guess to that extent, yes, but if you are asking about medical documents or anything like that, then the answer would be no. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at but ^I¶

7 8 A Q Well, for example, you are claimi our reputation was injured. 511)¶

9 ^ARight.¶

10 11 12 Q And based on the elemen proof required to prove injury to damage to rep there are certain factors that you must meet 1SK k¶

13 ^ARight.¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q I'm askin have any physical documentation or you've objected to all your financial info so I guess my question in plain English is: ow are you going to prove that you have any ki ecuniary -- pecuniary loss as a result of an 7<b y to your reputation if we don't have any is to back that up?¶

21 22 23 24 25 ^AI have not claimed an economic loss as a) (result of my reputation). ^Ihaven't. And the only thing that I can say to answer your question is, I know who has hired me. I will never know who would have hired me but elected not to because of what it was that they¶

Assr¶

EMPIRE LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. (954) 241-1010¶

EXHIBIT H¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

I. INTRODUCTION¶

1. I have been retained by the law firm of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA. to provide expert analysis and opinion on behalf of Mr. J. in the case originally styled Jeffrey Epstein, Plaintiff, vs. Scott Rothstein, individually, Mr. J. individually, and L. M., individually, Defendant, CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XX30GMBAG, which is pending in the Circuit Court of the 15'h Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach Coun S

II. QUALIFICATIONS¶

2. I am an adjunct professor at the College of Informatio C and Technology at The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsy ia, ' e 2017, where I have been employed since 2001. I was a tenure-track professo ti nnsylvania State University from 2009 through 2016, departing as a tenured full 14c, 2017. I am a principal scientist at the Qatar Computing Research Institute. I w n Fellow at the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which is part of the Pew R ter, from 2010-2012. I was a University Expert at the National Ground Intelligenc ate eom 2011 through 2014. Prior to my employment at The Pennsylvania State Unive as a Lecturer in the Computer Science Program at the University of Maryland ( ' Division) for 1 year, and before that, I was an Assistant Professor in the Departmen lect I Engineering and Computer Science at the United States Military Academy, a. oint, for 3 years.

addition to my academic credentials, my professional experience includes 20 years of practice in the U.S. military, serving in the Infantry as an enlisted soldier and then as a communications officer, working primarily in a variety of information technology-related positions.¶

4. I have authored approximately 250 academic publications, focusing on the areas of Web data, digital analytics, Web analytics, Web searching, Web search engines, social media, and

related areas. Approximately 200 of my publications address aspects of search analytics, Web analytics, online advertising, search engines, or Web searching. My recent research work focuses on online news analytics, which is the investigation of the online qualitative and quantitative attributes of news stories with other digital content, and social computing analytics, which is the investigation of social behavior using algorithmic methods. I am also the editor-in hief of the international academic journal, Information Processing and Management which p journal in information science field, and former editor-in-chief of the journal, In a topranked journal in the web science domain. I have authored, co-autho Ci, do ited four books, including Web Search: Public Searching of the Web (2004skUn anding User — Web Interactions via Web Analytics (2009) and Understandi Med Search (2011). A copy of my complete Curriculum Vitae, which includes a lis Sa oc, ications I have authored in the past 10 years, is attached as Appendix A.¶

5. My of profession "Itaiepert include web analytics, search engines, web searching, social media, online ad, nd related computer science and data science areas. In the course of my academi I have worked with a variety of search engines and information searching ap in order to understand user searching behavior on the Web and other environme or ex ple, as part of my program in Computer Science, I designed and coded eased search engine. For my Doctorate program in Computer Science, I devel gram interface for Web search engines and implemented it on the Gigabyte search engine. In subsequent research, I have worked with the Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) and Verity commercial searching systems.

6. As a computer scientist, I have engaged and am experienced with the classic computer science areas, such as programming, software development, algorithms, and networking.

I have done extensive server set-up and log analysis. As my project, for example, I designed and coded a tool for network performance evaluation and monitoring. I have taught a wide variety of computer courses, including microcomputing, programming (in various languages), and the Web/Intemet, at both the undergraduate and graduate level.¶

7. Concerning user searching behaviors on the Web and web analytics, Ill ve worked directly with real-user searching data from several web search engines. I've als web data of visitor traffic and other attributes from a variety of websites and O • a platforms. I've analyzed real-user data from online search marketing campai websites. I have conducted research and teaching concerning as engine keyword advertising. I've developed web anal yti business goals, and I have used web analytics da V m,i iblIS?itr y research and teaching. I've also conducted other research on user searching b ifs ,. have advised government agencies and companies in consulting and expert wi att A list of cases in which I have testified as an expert in deposition or trial in years is attached as Appendix B. I am being compensated for my work on gy at the rate of $400 per hour. referral traffic to sites, including search and processes for analysis of

III. ASSIGNMENT IATERIALS CONSIDERED¶

8. In vidin my expert opinion, I have been asked to respond to the following question: 0

TrinhTlerelTaistrnurlitor2alf tng statements assoctirtaW73rrdleT, CEdwards with-lhe tlle721Wiwthes afliCSaft-Rolliffitn as a resullOfitirreffreVEglim 1) (lawsuit-adrit-MirEilltrwdi?¶

10. For brevity, I refer to the statements associating Mr. with the illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein as a result of Mr. Epstein's lawsuit as the defaming statement; the statements, or the defaming statements associating Mr. with Rothstein's illegal activities.

11. The defaming statements associate Mr. with the illegal activities of a Mr. Scott Rothstein, who is a "notorious Ponzi schemer'. Now a debarred lawyer, he is serving a 50 year prison sentence2 for operating the $1.4 billion fraud from his Fort Lauderdalel m office, including forging the signatures of three federal judges on fake legal docusae yior to prison, in addition to spending money lavishly via the fruits of his fraud4, he resulting in some recipients having to return his charitable with a reported 16 million in US dollars8, he returned to ing to work with prosecutors in exchange for a reduced sentence. However, pros ,c ti§t, i drew the reduced sentence offer as they determined Mr. Rothstein lied during the • v ig on c and was attempting to hide assets9. a philanthropists, gtnally fleeing the US2

12. My analysis is based on tpy xpe ce, training, knowledge, and education and is formed through the application o rience, training, knowledge, and education in the

I Ponzi schemer Scott Rothste to feds and should save 50-year prison tarn, prosecutors say http:J/www.sun-sentineLcorn/local/browardMreg-scott-mthstein- lion-20170926-storyhtml¶

Miami, FL - Pon; Scott Rothstein Gets 50-year Sentence https://www.vosizneias.com/57450/2010/06/09/miami-fl-ponzi-schemerscott-rothstein tented; Florida Pony' schemer jailed for SI.2billion fraud currently saving a 50-year sentence and his wife officially divorce w.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169768/Divorce-linalized- I -20-Porrei-schemez-Rothstein.htmlnixwleinn9pfa¶

Miami, Pt, oiift Schemer Scott Rothstein Gets 50-year Sentence https://www.vosizneias.com/57450/20I0/06/09/miami-fl-porrei-schemerscoterothstcm-gos-50-year-saecnce¶

Rothstein Reveals How $ I.2 Billion Ponzi Scheme Money Was Spent http://miami.cbslocal.conV20I Ul2/30/rothstein-reveals-how- l -2-billionporrei-scheme-money-was-spent; The Ultimate Ponzi: Scott Rothstein Book Excerpts Reveal Juicy Details¶

hitps://www.huflingtonpost.comr2Ol 3103/I 2/scott-rothstein-book-the-ultimate-ponzi_n2862093.html; Scott Rothstein's Cheating Life¶

http://www.browardpalmbeach.comfnews/scott-rothsteins-cheating-life-6444966 South Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein faces arrest in Ponzi scheme hllp://www.tampabay.corninews/politics/stateroundupisouth-florida-lawyer-¶

scott-nathstein-faces-arresi-in-ponzi-schemell 055500 South Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein faces arrest in Ponzi scheme http://wevexamixtbay.comMews/politics/stataoundup/south-florida-lawycrscott-rothstein-faces-arrest-in-ponzi-scheme/I055500; Scott Rothstein Charged with Racketeering https://eww.cbsnews.comfnees/scottrothstein-charged-with-racketeerinW¶

⁷Foul schemer Scott Rothstein lied to feds and should save 50-year prison tam, prosecutors say httpliwww.sun-sentinel.com/localibrov.ard/flrcg-scott-rothstein-no-sattence-redunion-20170926-raory.Mml¶

Rothstein Sentenced to 50 Years Behind Bars http://www.nbcmiami.comMewsflocal/Rothstein-Sentenced-9595 I 004.html¶

Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein lied to feds and should save 50-year prison tam, prosecutors say http•//www.sun-sentinel.corn/IocaVbrowaMMreg-scott-iothstein-no-scntence-reduclion-2Ol70926-siory.html¶

principles of web data collection, web analytics, web search, search engines, websites, web traffic analysis, and related market analysis.¶

13. The materials that I considered in preparing this report are listed in Appendix C.

IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS¶

14. Based on my research and analysis in connection with this assignment, which is described in more detail in the body of this report, along with my own experience, training, knowledge, and education as stated, I have reached the following opinion:

15. (The defaming statements associating Mr. [REDACTED] J. Edwards with the illegal activities of Mr. Scott Rothstein as a result of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein's lawsuit against Mr. Edwards have been disseminated to at least 74 online media or other sites in 104 separate stories or articles with a combined 9,669,542 potential daily visitors since the lawsuit was filed to the date that I filed this report, inclusive)

16. This number is conservative, and it is more likely than not, that the defaming statements have received wider dissemination due to factors, discussed in more detail later in this report, such as:

a. It is a reasonable assumption that I have not located all references to the defaming statements on every website by the time of the submission of this report. So, there may be more sites with articles containing the defaming statements that are not included in my calculations.¶

b. The focus of my analysis was the online dissemination of the statements. Therefore, I examined only online sources and not the dissemination of the statements made via print or broadcast media. It is reasonable to assume that the statements made were disseminated via these other channels.¶

c. I have not included dissemination of the defaming statements in the book, Filthy Rich10 by authors James Patterson and John Connolly. Therefore, this source of dissemination is not included in my analysis.¶

d. In my analysis, I have not attempted to measure face-to-face dissemination of articles containing the defaming statements. Therefore, these sources of disseminafon are not included in the count of daily unique visitors.¶

e. Since I do not have aerecc to certain online sources C e ; ft'cies containing the defaming statements may have been disseminated (e. sages, personal social media messages, articles behind firewalls, etc.), these so t included in the count of daily unique visitors.¶

f. Given the nature of the Web, e ossibly sites that have hosted the defaming statements that I could not locate or statements have been removed. Therefore, these sources of disseminatio no eluded in the count.¶

g. Also, there s osted the articles containing the defaming statements where the visitor da is n t accessible or where I could not confirm the number of visitors. In these cases, e gh I had confirmed the site had posted one or more articles containing the de~ng sta ments, I did not include these sites in my calculation of the unique daily visitorsO¶

I did not consider the dissemination via social media platforms of articles containing the defaming statements. Therefore, these sources of dissemination are not included in the count of daily unique visitors.¶

¹⁰ James Patterson and John Connolly (2016) Can 13uv - The Shocking 'frue Story of Jeffrey Epstein. little, ttleand Company.¶

i. There were many sites that published multiple articles on multiple days that contained or referenced the defaming statements; however, I did not use these multiple articles from the same site with different publication dates in my calculations in determining the number of daily unique visitors who have been exposed to the articles containing the defaming statements.¶

j. I did not include unique daily visitors to articles that link t article to one or more of the articles containing the defaming statements; unless t13a t ireetly referenced the defaming statements, I did not include it in my analys¶

k. I did not include the number of indivi hoer reading the articles shared the articles or contents contained within those artt ', ers, which would include multiple individuals reading the same article at or a t Ss, t t s e time at the same computer as well as all individuals who learned of the con s t e th icles from others who had read the articles.¶

1. Finally, I did49Pi tie the counts of those who may have been searching and saw the defaming statement in the search results listing.

V. BACKGROUN ANALYTICS FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS¶

17. of forming this opinion, I implemented numerous web analytics and related tech commonly used in the industry. In order to more clearly discuss these tech& fine the following terms:

• Direct Traffic: visitors to a website that come from entering a website link into a browser location bar (e.g., not coming via a link on another website).

• Dissemination: the act of spreading or the circulation of information or articles.

• Domain: a specific Internet website that are administered as a unit and defined by an Internet Protocol (IP) address.

• Reach: the percentage or number of people who visit a website out of the total targeted population.

• search engines.

• Referral Traffic: visitors to a site that come from wcbsitcs, other than Re eat Visits: visitor traffic to a website in a given Ag t just includes multiple visits from the same set of IP addresses (i.e., IP addr withlltofe than one visit); provides a count of the people who have visited a site mo V once in a given period. An rip% individual is usually defined by a combination of IP add a ser within a given period but can also be defined by more sophisticated methods

• Search Enaine: a pr associated hardware and processes that allows people to find information on cally via the submission of queries consisting of terms.

• Search Traffii: visitors to a site that come from search engines rather than from other websites or via',trect navigation.

• earch: a submission of a query to a search engine, usually in the form of terms fo ,.. "n 6. qu ry.

• Share: sharing of an article or webpage typically via some social media platform.

  • Social Media: content that is shared via a social networking website.

• Unique Visits: visitor traffic to a website within a given period that includes only the fist visit (i.e., subsequent visits are ignored), which excludes repeat visits; provides a count of the individuals who have visited a site in a given period.

• Unique Daily Visitors: visitor traffic to a website who visits a site at least once in a given 24-hour period. Each visitor, to the site, is counted once during the repo ing period, which means it excludes repeat visits; provides a count of the individuals who t ted a site on a given day.

• Visits: a count of all the traffic to a website in a od, including both unique and repeat visits.

• Web Analvties: the mcasuremettXc9llt 6n, analysis, and reporting of web data.

18. In forming my opinion, tit accepted web analytics and related methodologies. To that end, I employed us p licly available online analytic services, as well as subscription-based services in gditip my research, including:

• Alexa: a nli e service that provides web traffic data and analysis.
• G Keyword Tool: an online service that provides the number of searches for a giv t o ywords in a given month on the Google search engine.

oogle Trends: an online service that shows how often a particular term is relatively, on the Google search engine in a given period.¶

Quantcast: an online service that provides web traffic data and analysis. SimilarWeb: an online service that provides web traffic data and analysis.

¶

19. These tools offer a variety of data and analysis services, and they are frequently utilized by industry professionals in the search engine optimization, web analytics, and search engine marketing for the market, customer, and competitive analysis. Furthermore, where possible, I did my own assessments, as outlined below, in order to validate the data and analysis results.

20. I also utilized search engines, primarily Google and Bing, to assess the dissemination of articles containing the statements.

21. When necessary, I used multiple data sources, which is a data verificat on technique known as triangulation", where one uses multiple and disparate sourceSlbNlnalysis and then compare the results from the separate analysis. If the results are I • , inforccs the conclusion that the overall data analysis is valid.

22. In situations where I believed that I could not ad tel rify the number of individuals or did not have confidence in the numbers in sN,a£ons, I did not include those numbers in the calculation.

23. Concerning the accuracy of the ( c ith11s~i " e number of domains where the statements have been disseminated is re ' e, as is is straightforward to verify (i.e., the article is either posted on a site or it is no isle either contains the defaming statements or no). If anything, this is an undercou e domains, for example, may have removed such articles, making them no vailable. There are possibly articles containing the defaming statements that I able to locate by the time that I submitted this report.

24. Co erning traffic numbers for domains, the traffic services I used are the de facto ind Y dard, with billions of dollars in online advertising spend being based on these and related numbers12. Therefore, I consider them reliable for the purpose employed here.

^&#x27;ITriangulation (social science) hlip://en.wikipalia.org/wikiffriangulation_%28social_sciencen29¶

^1&#x27; U.S. Digital Advertising Will Make S83 Billion This Year, Says EMarketer linp://www.adweek.com/digital/u-s-digital-advertising-will-make-63-billion .this-year-says-emarkeler/</p><p block-type='Text'>25. My analysis is based on my experience, training, knowledge, and education and is formed through the application of that experience, training, knowledge, and education in the principles of web data collection, web analytics, web search, search engines, websites, and related areas.</p><h2>VI. METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE DISSEMINATION OF THE DEFAMING STATEMENTS AGAINST MR.</h2><p block-type='Text'>26. My opinion is that articles containing the defaming statem n disseminated to at least 74 online media or other sites in 104 separate C o Cart i ides with a combined 9,669,542 potential daily visitors.</p><p block-type='Text'>27. This is a conservative estimate, and it ism' an not, the statements have received wider dissemination due to factors outlin •VSioe fr</p><p block-type='Text'>28. Concerning the procedure emp k life• termining the dissemination of the statements, nearly every major news si t I in stigated has carried some aspects of the overall case relating to Mr. Epstein, or other parties involved. In fact, there are hundreds of news articles and concerning the general story from news outlets worldwide, with combin tial viewership in the multi-millions.</p><p block-type='Text'>29. H ver, I not interested in articles that just discussed the story in general or other aspects story. I was specifically interested in only those articles that referenced directl ming statements. Naturally, this narrow focus is a much smaller subset of news articles and other articles than are the articles addressing the overall story.</p><p block-type='Text'>30. To isolate these articles of interest, I generated a series of queries's that specifically targeted news articles from the case that addressed the defaming statements (e.g., Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and lawsuit) to retrieve a set of articles that directly related to the defaming statements14. I employed a modified snowball technique's, starting with one seed query, adding and modifying terms until I was not retrieving new results. I also located some articles via navigating from the set of retrieved articles.</p><p block-type='Text'>31. An example of a search engine results page in response to op e queries is shown in Figure I.</p><p block-type='Text'>32. Figure 1: Google search results for the search edwards epstein Ponzi scheme.</p><p>¹³epstein. ein POIal scheme. brad Pond. brad lawyer Pond. brad dirty lawyer. fl ay Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and J. lawsuit, Epstein Attorney's Suit Against Billionaire Allowed as Long us Justices Say h's OK Just an 'Ordinary Guy,' Lawyer Dishes on Surviving Rothstein, Battling Epstein.</p><p>^&quot;In addition to the queries. I located some ankles via direction navigation.</p><p>^&quot; https://en.wikipediaorg/wikirSnowball_sampling</p><p><img src='_page_96_Figure_146.jpeg'></p><p>33. I then personally verified that each article contained the defaming statements, by reviewing each article used in my analysis to ensure that the articles directly referenced in some way the defaming statements.</p><p>34. So, articles relating to the overall story that did <b>not</b> mention the defaming statements were <b>not</b> included in the analysis.</p><p block-type='Text'>35. In the end, 1 had a set of 104 online news articles or stories to the date that I filed this report that specifically referenced the defaming statements to conduct my analysis, as outlined below. These articles are listed in Appendix D.</p><p block-type='Text'>36. Each of these 104 online articles was posted online. The 104 online articles were distributed among 74 unique domain websites (i.e., some websites posted multiple articles that contain the statements). These 74 domains are also listed in Appendix D with th articles links.</p><p block-type='Text'>37. As seen from the list of domains that have published cOories containing references to the statement, many of these domains are those o ; 'or organizations or sources, including BuzzFeed, Forbes, New York Daily N P ix, Radar Online, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, etc.</p><p block-type='Text'>38. There are regional Florida new itlls, ere Mr. IIM' law office is located, that published articles containing the dung s ements, including The Palm Beach Daily News and The Palm Beach Post.</p><p block-type='Text'>39. I then used a v ty o dreb analytics traffic services and other sources to get the unique daily visitor traffi rch of these domains. 1 used multiple services when necessary to get the unique da isitor raffic for each of these domains, as these traffic services may use different to iqu to arrive at their traffic numbers. In cnd, I used primarily SimilarWeb, as the servic erally providing the most consistent results across websites.</p><p block-type='Text'>40. In cases where I determined I could not get unique daily visitor traffic numbers or the unique daily visitor traffic was not reliable, in my opinion, I did not include the unique daily visitor traffic numbers for that domain in the numbers. This usually occurred for the sites with a smaller number of daily visitors or sites with an extremely large number of daily visitors.</p><p block-type='Text'>41. Unique daily visitors measure is an industry standard web analytics metric for measuring people that visit a website in a given day, also known as unique audience. It is generally averaged out over multiple days with a given period, such as week or month, as there are normal daily fluctuations.</p><p block-type='Text'>42. Table 1 shows the unique daily visitor traffic for the listed domains than posted articles or stories referencing the statements and the associated unique daily visi c for each of those domains, along with the number of articles containing the de t tements posted on that site.</p><p block-type='Text'>43. Table I: Domains that published articles or • c aining the defaming statements with the domain's number of unique daily o d the number of articles contai ling the statements published on that dom 1iltS h, ate that I filed this report.</p>

No. 1 2	Domain 15thcircuit.co.palm-beach. J. aangirfan.blogspot.qa	( sHNY Domain Unique Visitor Traffic (Daily) a a	Number of Articles Published I I
3	able2know.org	18980	1
4	abovethelaw.co b	51000	2
5	absolutewrite.com	37333	1
6	amlawdail epa om ic	a	1
7	anonh .c m
		18689	1
8	archi
	.o	b	1
9	u sentinel.com	14979	1
10	oogle.com.qa	b	I
11	c nfire.blogspot.ga	a	1
12	casetext.com	20947
13	deeppoliticsforum.com	a	1
14	doc la er.net	42400	1
15	docuri.com	6024	1
16	forum.davidicke.com	11607	1
17	fullcontentdaily.com	a

<p> ^sNielsen Online Ratings Metrics Guidelines, Mtp://digitalmeasuremeninielsen.cornifiles/metrics-guidelines.pdi</p>¶

No.	Domain	Domain Unique Visitor Traffic (Daily)	Number of Articles Published
18	girlsjustwannahaveguns.com	8461	1
19	jjr.com	63500	1
20	jonathanturley.org	11827	1
21	law.justia.com	92567	1
22	lawnewz.com	114800	1
23	mondoweiss.net	13949	1
24	nesaranews.blogspot.qa	6227	1
25	novaordemnews.blogspot.qa	a	1
26	pagesix.com	55600	1
27	peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com	a	1
28	radaronline.com	303367	1
29	seeker401.wordpress.com	a	1
30	sites.eveyo.com	21627	1
31	static1.squarespace.com	b	1
32	tabublog.com	a	2
33	theawarenesscenter.blogspot.qa	a	1
34	thegoldwater.com	21239	1
35	themillenniumreport.com	8640	1
36	www.4dca.org	a	2
37	www.abajournal.com	17782	1
38	www.alecomm.com	a	1
39	www.browardpalmbeach.com	17431	1
40	www.buzzfeed.com	717350	1
41	www.courthousenews.com	8785	1
42	www.dailybusinessreview.com	a	1
43	www.dailymail.co.uk	1245477	3
44	www.democraticunderground.com	114467	1
45	www.documentcloud.org	38367	1
46	www.facebook.com	b	1
47	www.fairfaxunderground.com	9860	1
48	www.floppingaces.net	a	1
49	www.floridabulldog.org	a	2
50	www.forbes.com	3942600	2
51	www.freerepublic.com	181467	1
52	www.garyeto.com	a	1
53	www.gossipextra.com	41647	3
54	www.gpo.gov	58667	1
55	www.ieyenews.com	a	1
56	www.justice-integrity.org	a	3

No.	Domain					Domain Unique Visitor Traffic (Daily)	Number of Articles Published
57	www.law.com					34000	1
58	www.law360.com					46333	1
59	www.librarything.com					105333	1
60	www.nydailynews.com					1785333	2
61	www.pacificpundit.com					6399	1
62	www.palmbeachdailynews.com					8 I	7
63	www.palmbeachpost.com					y. 0	3
64	www.pressreader.com				b		5
65	www.reddit.com				b		1
66	www.rigorousintuition.ca				a		1
67	www.scribd.com				b		3
68	www.slideshare.net				b		1
69	www.sott.net				IIlk	112333	1
70	wvvw.talkleft.com				'V		3
71	www.telegraph.co.uk			'
			t(	'
						4828	2
72	www.the5thestate.asia			\ v	a		I
73	www.veteranstoday.com					46000	1
74	www. m • u.com	'			b		2
						9,669,542	104

<p block-type='Text'>a - Unique daily visitor traffic not available</p><p block-type='Text'>b - Unique daily visitor traffic not verifiabl</p><p block-type='Text'>44. As shown in Ta are 74 domains that hosted 104 articles containing the defaming statements aga t Mr. Edwards with these defaming statements begin disseminated to, conservatively, a tial 69542 daily visitors to these websites.</p><p block-type='Text'>45. ch domain's unique daily visitor count to calculate the dissemination of the arti mg the statements to various websites and potentially to visitors to that site (i.e., as vis rs to the news sitcs, these individuals could have been exposed to the articles containing the statements), using the unique daily visitor number only once for each domain, regardless whether that domain published more than one article referring to the statements.</p><h2>VII. RESULTS FOR ANALYSIS OF THE DISSEMINATION OF THE DEFAMING STATEMENTS AGAINST MR.</h2><p>46. Based on my analysis as outlined above, my opinion is that <i>the defaming statements associating Mr. [REDACTED] with the illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein as a result of Mr. Epstein's lawsuit against Mr. [REDACTED] have been disseminated to at least 74 online media or other sites in 104 separate stories or articles with a combined 9,669,542 potential daily visitors since the lawsuit was filed to the date that I filed this report, inclusive.</i></p><p>47. This is a conservative number, and more likely than not, articles containing the defaming statements made have been disseminated to more individuals.</p><h3><b><u>VIII. WHY THE NUMBER IS CONSERVATIVE</u></b></h3><p>48. This is a conservative number, and it is more likely than not, the defaming statements have received wider dissemination due to factors such as:</p><p>a. Although I spent considerable effort to locate published articles that contained the defaming statements, it is reasonable to assume that I have not located all such articles by the time of the submission of this report. So, there are most likely more sites with articles containing the defaming statements that are <b>not</b> included in my calculations, which would increase the dissemination of the articles on domains and increase the traffic count.</p><p>b. The focus of my analysis was the dissemination of online articles containing the defaming statements, and I examined only online sources and <b>not</b> print or broadcast media.</p><p>c. I have not included dissemination of the defaming statements in the book, <u>Filthy Rich</u>¹⁷ by authors James Patterson and John Connolly. As Mr. Patterson is a well-known author, the book had an initial printing of 500,000¹⁸, is well ranked in Amazon's electronic book</p><p></p><hr/><p>¹⁷ James Patterson and John Connolly (2016) <u>Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy - The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein</u>. Little, [REDACTED] and Company.</p><p></p><p>¹⁸ <u>FILTHY RICH - PATTERSON, JAMES/ CONNOLLY, JOHN (CON)/ MALLOY, TIMOTHY (CON) - NE</u>
<a href="http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/FILTHY-RICH-PATTERSON-JAMES-CONNOLLY-JOHN-CON-MALLOY-TIMOTHY-CON-NE/192248712306?\_trkparms">http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/FILTHY-RICH-PATTERSON-JAMES-CONNOLLY-JOHN-CON-MALLOY-TIMOTHY-CON-NE/192248712306?\_trkparms</a></p><p block-type='Text'>and other sections19, and also, a top USA Today top selling book20. The book is available and/or has been reviewed on at least 20 websites, including USA Today, New York Journal of Books, The Daily Beast, and the New York Post, and is available from major online retailers, including Amazon, Wal-mart, Barnes and Noble, and eBay, among others, as shown in Appendix E. This source of dissemination is not included in my calculation.</p><p block-type='Text'>d. In my analysis, I did not attempt to measure face-to-face di ation that may have occurred after individuals may have read articles containin ing statements, which would increase the count. Therefore, this is not in y calculations.</p><p block-type='Text'>e. Naturally, I could not access certain onl. where the defaming statements made may have been disseminated (e.g., emai t, social media messages, U" articles behind firewalls, etc.). Therefore, these nu t included in my calculations.</p><p block-type='Text'>f. Also, there are possibly 'S have hosted articles containing the defaming statements where the articles c .....e be moved. Therefore, they are not included in my calculations.</p><p block-type='Text'>For sites erq dne or more of the articles containing the defaming statements are posted but I could not locate or not determine reliable daily unique visitor traffic, I have no luded ese sites in my calculations.</p><p block-type='Text'>did not include the dissemination of the articles containing the defaming statem tly to social media platforms.</p><p>^&quot;Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein bups://www.amvon.coni/dp/BOIEFL9BMC/refdp•kindle-mdireeff\_encodinrUfF8&bila—1</p><p>^&quot;Patterson takes on sordid Jeffrey Epstein case in 'Filthy Rich' hupsliwww.usatoday.comistoryi-Jfilthy•sich•jeffrey• epstein...patterson..J9l 605266/</p><p block-type='Text'>i. I did not include articles that link to one of the articles containing the statements in my calculations of dissemination. Unless the article directly mentioned the statements, I did not include that article in my calculations.</p><p block-type='Text'>J. Many sites published multiple articles on multiple days that quoted or referenced the statements; however, I did not use these multiple publication dates fro the same site in my calculations of unique visitor traffic. If a domain published only one ntaining the statements, then I directly used the unique daily visitors number. If a d dished multiple articles concerning the statements, I did not count the traffic or sequent articles containing the statements made, even though research shows ffic to websites is generally only about 30%21, meaning that 70% of the tra unique. However, I was not comfortable using this figure given the nature "Ss ., c it which might have higher repeat visitors day-to-day. Therefore, I did not inclu f irs to multiple articles in my calculations.</p><p block-type='Text'>k. Finally, I di t ^o \* ' de the count of people who may have been searching and may have seen t stat ents made in the search results, without needing to visit the actual articles, which icily happen, as shown in Figure 2.</p><p block-type='Text'>I. Figu e 2: Example of search results with the defaming statements appearing i u t snippets, requiring no need to visit the website hosting the articles the</p><p>n Tetuan, J., Adar, IS., R. and Potts, M. (2006). History repeals itself: repeal queries in Yahoo's logs. In Proceedings oldie 29th annual international ACAI SIGN conference on Research and development in information removal (SIGIR '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 703-704.</p><p><img src='\_page\_104\_Picture\_1.jpeg'></p><p block-type='Text'></p><p><img src='\_page\_104\_Picture\_3.jpeg'></p><p><img src='\_page\_104\_Picture\_4.jpeg'></p><p block-type='Text'>All News Images Videos More Setdngs Tools</p><p block-type='Text'>About 290.000 results (0.57 seconds)</p><p block-type='Text'>Jeffrey Epstein paid S5.5M to settle lawsuits I Page Six</p><p block-type='Text'>https://pagesix.com/2017/101041jeffrey-epstein-paid-5-5m-to-settle4awsuits/ •</p><p block-type='Text'>Oct 4. 2017 - Rothstein is servings 50-year sentence for running a 51.2 billion Panc.cherr e. Epstein had sued the Florida attorneys, claiming</p><p block-type='Text'>C ti) Jeffrey Epstein paid 3 women 55.5 million to end sex lawsuits</p><p block-type='Text'>www.palmbeachpostsominews/crime.../epstein../BGEJkara2X4ffig4HAqyJr •</p><p block-type='Text'>Oct 3. 2017 - Pan Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein paid 52.5 million, 52 million 8 51 ... that had nothing to do with Rothstein's Ponzl scheme....</p><p block-type='Text'>PALM BEACH PERV Jeffrey Epstein Paid Victims MILLIONS!</p><p block-type='Text'>vAvw.gossipextra.com/2017/10/04/jeffrey-epstein-paidtwillions-79822 •</p><p block-type='Text'>Oct 4.2017 - Epstein has sued both lawyers, alleging that Invented the sex-slave narrative to perpetuate the Ponzl scheme overseen by Rothstein.</p><p block-type='Text'>Newest lawsuit against Epstein expected to include victim...</p><p block-type='Text'>wampalmbeachdailynews.cominewsilocalt..epstein.../CZ14s0ESb0Q4nb7njcl hiJ</p><p block-type='Text'>Oct 20. 2013 - One or more Weems of Palm Beecher Jeffrey Epstein are expected to testify ... criminal Issues; Ponzl•scheme ategations surrounding</p><p block-type='Text'>Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein shells out more money in latest sex abuse ...</p><p block-type='Text'>www.nydailynews.comf.../billionairejeffretepstei oney-latest-sex-abuse4a... •</p><p block-type='Text'>Dec 19, 2009- Epstein has fled a suit charging that took part In a Ponzl scheme In which his former law partner. Scott Rothstein. gaffed Investors by ...</p><p block-type='Text'>ne-:— I —.non</p><h4>XI SUMMARY OF OPINION</h4><p block-type='Text'>19. The defaming statements concerning Mr. have been disseminated to at least 74 online media or other sites in 104 separate stories or articles with a combined 9,669,542 individual unique visitors to the date that I filed this report, inclusive. More likely than not, this is a conservative estimate.</p><p block-type='Text'>50. Right to Amend: Although I have had access to materials publicly available pertaining to claims in this dispute, I have not been able to review all the material by the deadline for completion of this report. I reserve the right to review and rely on any such material, including at the time of trial. I also reserve the right to issue a supplemental or an amended report if my review of such material results in any significant change or addition to my opinion.</p><p block-type='Text'>c oS</p><p>DATED: 20 October 2017</p><p>Respectfully submitted,</p><img/><p>Dr. Bernard J. Jansen
Adjunct Professor
College of Information Sciences and Technology
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA, 16802
Phone: 434-249-8687
Email: <a href="mailto:jjansen@acm.org">jjansen@acm.org</a>
URL: <a href="http://www.bernardjjansen.com/">http://www.bernardjjansen.com/</a></p><p>NOT A CERTIFIED COPY</p> </body> </html>