JEFFREY EPSTEIN, vs. 41\] S TT OTHSTEIN, individually, J. , individually, and L.M., O Defendant, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG #### DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLALNTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff J. by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/ endant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment. Epstein seeks Summary J the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution set forth in Brad Amended Counterclaim. Each of the grounds asserted in support of Epstein's Motion for Sum ent are without merit and must be denied. In Epstein's Amended C laip e caries forth the essence of all claims asserted in his original Complaint. In that pleadatg f rpstein essentially alleges that joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexydlssauldcases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. The purported "p 0 f th allegations against, as referenced in the Second Amended Complaint and in E st otion for Summary Judgment, includes alleged contacts with the media, his attempts tajobtain discovery from high profile persons with whom Epstein socialized, press reports of Rothstein's known illegal activities, the use of "ridiculously inflammatory" language and arguments in court. But as the evidence submitted in opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment reflects, Epstein filed his claims and continued to pursue claims despite his knowledge that his claims could never be successful because they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief of suspicion that they were true. Epstein knew that he had in fact molested each of the minors represented by Brad He also knew that each litigation decision by Brad was grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery against Epstein, particularly in the face of Epstein's stonewalling tactics. Epstein also knew that he suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of Mo intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination void providing rey\T inferences that a fact finder would draw and which would 'y otherwise bear on the arguments ltted by Epstein in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment are as follows: - "÷ Question not answered: "Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. ginned up?" Reasonable inference: No allegations against Epstein were ginned up. - t answered: "1 want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement?" Reasonable ence: No knowledge that Brad ever participated in the Ponzi scheme. - Question not answered: "Well, which of Mr. cases do you contend were fabricated?" Reasonable inference: No cases filed by against Epstein were fabricated. - Question not answered: "Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?" Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults were taking place. - Question not answered: "How many minors have you procured for prostitution?" Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution. - Question not answered: "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?" Reasonabl fer6tice: Nothing in L.M.'s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false -% alleged in L.M.'s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her whi a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive dama suit. - Question not answered: "I would like to know whether yo ad any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in tha ede mplaint?" Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with min. dm?oe as alleged in her federal complaint. - Question not answered: "Did you ever haVitw sical contact with E.W.?" Reasonable inference: Epstein had phyJcytl contact with minor E.W. as alleged in her complaint. - Question not answered: "What is1acfual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?" Reasonabf inference: E.W.'s claim against Epstein had substantial actual value. (See Exhibit "A" e tStatement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 93-120 for page referene's.) A jury could conclude, therefore, from the adverse inferences drawn against Epstein that he was liable for the claim ought)by Brad and that he had no basis for the pursuit of his efforts to intimidate an and his clients in the pursuit of those claims. ## The LitilltitW.Phvileee Does Not Bar the Claims of Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution E Lein contends he is entitled to absolute immunity pursuant to the litigation privilege as to both claims asserted by because all actions taken by him occurred during the litigation of his abuse of process claim against For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecution cause of action. Wolfe is still on rehearing and, thus, is not a final opinion. As a result, it is not binding, nor persuasive. Moreover, Wolfe undercuts the long-standing recognition of the viability of a claim for malicious prosecution in its own District and other Florida state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("As the Levin court cited v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious pro continues to exist and would not be barred by the litigation privilege."); Boca Investors G v. Potash, 835 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Cope, J., concurring) (litigation pri 1 d not be a bar to a malicious prosecution action); North Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC v. 11 Fed. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2009) ("However, not every event bearing any a t litigation is protected by the privileged because,... "if the litigation privilege applied s preliminary to or during judicial proceedings, an abuse of process claim would never xi S nor, s(ould a claim for malicious prosecution"); Cruz v. Angelides, 574 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d D 1) e law is well settled that a witness in a judicial proceeding,... is absolutely immune E vil liability, save perhaps malicious prosecution, for testimony or other sworn stateme or she gives in the course of the subject proceeding."); v. Libow, 2012 WL 4 a. 15th Jud. Cir. March 1, 2012)(the purpose of the litigation privilege does not preclude of malicious prosecution). In Yurko supra, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the application of the litigation pn • a malicious prosecution action brought by a physician against his patients and an successfully defended a malpractice claim. Also of significance is the Second District's opinion in son v. M, 961 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In that case, the court observed that the litigation (or judicial) privilege would not apply to bar a malicious prosecution action which arose as a result of a false accusation of criminal liability where the prosecution was based, in part, on the testimony of the defendants in the criminal case. The court ruled that the privilege (either absolute or qualified) which might otherwise apply to a defamation claim for statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding did not bar a malicious prosecution claim. In light of the implicit recognition by the Supreme Court in Levin that a claim of malicious prosecution is not barred by the litigation privilege — an implicit recognition acknowledged y the Third District itself — Epstein's reliance on Wolfe is misplaced. Wolfe is also factually dis able from claims against Epstein. Wolfe involved a malicious prosecution Se r a Separate policy considerations might serve to impose additional limitation at rtion of malicious prosecution claims against attorneys — against whom alternative remedies'rastisuch as bar disciplinary proceedings. See Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.2d 642 (Idaho 201 ver, in light of the decisions in Wright v. Yurko, supra and Olson v. , supra, the hority supports the proposition that the litigation privilege would not apply to malicious io claims. inst attorneys. Both the Third and Fourth Districts appllEd the litigation privilege to abuse of process claims. However, Wolfe itself, and th of the Third and Fourth Districts cited in Wolfe, involved the litigation privilege as p d t claims of abuse of process by attorneys. None of the cases involved the extraordinary action f ail individual party like Epstein who carried out a course of action against Plaintiff's counsel singular purpose unrelated to any legitimate judicial goal. Under the compelling facts is case, where the actions of Epstein are coupled with the elements of malice and absence of cause arising from the unfounded filing of the claims against, the litigation privil not have any applicability to the abuse of process claim asserted by ## There a Disputed Issues of Fact Precluding Summary Judgment on the Abuse of Process Claim An abuse of process claim requires pleading and proof of the following three elements: 1 ) that the defendant made an illegal, improper or perverted use of process; 2) that the defendant had ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; and 3) that, as a result of such action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damage." See S&I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(citation omitted). The case law is clear that on an abuse of process claim a "plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed." Id. (citation omitted). Where the actions taken by a party in a particular lawsuit are designed to coerce another into taking some collateral action not properly involved in the proceeding a claim of abuse of process is stated. 8636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985). Miami Herald Publishing Co y v. Ferre, %Ac - I, 7 In a case for abuse of process, the question of whether the plainti C S•C'\_sa a, rtisfies the requisite elements is largely a question for a jury. See John McGinley, 21 Fla. ., Elements of an Action § 50:1 (2013-2014 ed.)(citing Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc. 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). The usual case of abuse of process involves som tortion. Scozari v. Barone, 546 So. 2d 750, 751(Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Bothmann tn on, 458 So. 2d 1163, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)). That is exactly what has transpired her his disposal to intimidate his molestation nd steinrnployed the extraordinary financial resources at into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for subst than their just and reasonable value. Consequently, since Epstein's sole purpose and ulteri o e for filing the complaint without probable cause was in an effort to extort, to wit: to force h station victims and to settle for minimal amounts, that filing and everything su uently clone to pursue the claims constitutes an abuse of process. See Exhs. A at 18- 27, C at 4-7 use claims signed to coerce (and his client) to take some collateral action not properly involved in the proceedings and did so with an ulterior purpose, summary judgment directed at the abuse of process claim must fail. The damages suffered by include: (a) injury to his reputation; (b) mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety; (c) fear 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 responsibility; and (e) the cost of defending against Epstein's spurious and baseless claims. All the elements of the has conclusively demonstrated that Epstein's actions in pursuing his claim for abuse of process have been satisfied. This case, then, falls within the parameters of the Third District's Decision in Scozari v. Barone, supra in which the court reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant on claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. With respect to the abuse of process claim, the court stated that "if there was no reasonable basis in law and fac to bring the action to impress a lien on property, and this was done without any reasonable justificaf er law and to force or compel the appellant to resolve some custody dispute, induce the ap tie up the appellant's property, then there has been an abuse of process." Id o pay money, or # There are Disputed Issues of Fact Precluding Summary indent n Lie Claim of Malicious Prosecution Here, Epstein's voluntary dismissal of his abuse of p s against amounted to a bona fide termination of the proceedings. He knew h s were unsupported by evidence (See discussion above at pages 3-6). Knowing he lac ifiable evidence against, on the eve of the summary judgment hearing, Epstei ecti conceded that fact by voluntarily dismissing his claims. Hence, it is evident that E o luntary dismissal of his claims because he knew he did not have probable cause or an ev denti asis to support the allegations. See v. Corwin, 980 So. 2d 1153 at 1156 (citing ion Oi of California, Amsco Division v. 468 So. 2d 349 at 354 (stating that "where 1441 dismt I is taken because of insufficiency of the evidence, the requirement of a favorable term on net")). Accordingly, the manner of termination reflects on the merits of the case and there a fide termination of Epstein's civil proceeding against (See Judge Order o arch 29, 2012 denying Motion to Dismiss re: Issue of Bonatide Termination attached as Exhibit "H"). Epstein's only other issue with ' counterclaim for malicious prosecution is that he did not lack probable cause in pursing his claims against As established by the record, Epstein did, in fact, lack probable cause to assert his claims against (See discussion above). Epstein's purported reliance on public filings, including the Scherer Complaint against Rothstein is unavailing. As discussed above, the evidence warrants the finding that Epstein knew that was legitimately pursuing the claims on behalf of his clients which included the effort to secure testimony from Epstein's close confidants. Therefore, Epstein cannot rely upon the referenced public documents to support his claims against given that he knows that information to be untrue and he refuses uestions about the veracity of the information. See Exh. G at pgs. 53:6-24; 78:16-24; 87;2O4J Consequently, Epstein had no good faith basis to rely on such information. #### Epstein's Assertion of his Fifth Amendment Privilege Gives Rise to Adverse Inferences Pertinent to His Motion for Summary Judvment and Precludes His Reliance on Purported Undisputed Facts \\s e" As discussed above, Epstein's multiple invocatignStQf ifth Amendment Privilege results in adverse inferences which directly impact the issues v ed in his Motion for Summary Judgment. "It is well settled that the Fifth Amendment does t bi dverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in res bative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1 rd, Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. at 2001). The reason for this rule "is both I and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the conseq by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Securt 1NV. Corp, 615 So. 2d. 841, 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The adverse inferences drawn fro upon t ed undisputed material facts to support his Motion for Summary Judgment. s assertion of the Fifth Amendment undercut his claim of justifiable reliance based Moreover, because Epstein elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self-incrimination to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at the center of his claims, he was effectively barred from prosecuting his abuse of process claim against . Similarly, Epstein should be barred from utilizing the Fifth Amendment privilege to secure summary judgment based upon assertions of fundamental facts when Epstein refused to testify on essential issues pertinent to the arguments advanced in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Under the well-established "sword and shield" doctrine, Epstein could not seek damages from while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. See Exits. B at 14-21, C at 18-25, G at 53:6-24; 78:16.24; 87:20-88:14. The same policies which underlie the sword and shield doctrine as pplied to the recovery of affirmative relief should also apply to attempts to advance positions with r a Motion for Summary Judgment which would have the effect of securing relief against ce "\[Tike law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his C his lawsuit." Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. JA., 22 So. 3d 855, 856 (FI it, DCA 2009)(Mil, J., concurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek affirmative Iij civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the fi t as both a \`sword and a shield.'" DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. \\ th 89)(quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). P ther ay, "[a] civil litigant's fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination may be used a but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action a of nvoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, t thwarting the defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick Hunter of 'red, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).. For the same reasons, Epstein should be uded from advancing arguments based on purported statements of undisputed fact which canno done New York, Inc. v. Euroclas tively challenged in light of his assertion of the Fifth Amendment. Epstein has at well-established law prohibits. ### Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, submits that Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied. respectfully I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all\ Counsel on the attached list, this 17th day of January, 2014. ![](<>)NOTA CERTIFICATION **COUNSEL LIST** William Chester [REDACTED], Esquire\ wcblaw@aol.com; wcbcg@aol.com\ 250 S Australian Avenue, Suite 1400\ West Palm Beach, FL 33401\ Phone: (561)-655-4777\ Fax: (561)-835-8691\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire\ jgoldberger@agwpa.com;\ smahoney@agwpa.com\ Atterbury, 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 [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esquire\ staff.efile@pathtojustice.com\ Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos &\ Lehrman, FL\ 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301\ Phone: (954)-524-2820\ Fax: (954)-524-2822\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Fred Haddad, Esquire\ Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com;\ haddadfm@aol.com; fred@fredhaddadlaw.com\ Fred Haddad, P.A.\ One Financial Plaza, Suite 2612\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394\ Phone: (954)-467-6767\ Fax: (954)-467-3599\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Marc S. Nurik, Esquire\ marc@nuriklaw.com\ 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 Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire\ tonja@tonjahaddad.com;\ Debbie@Tonjahaddad.com;\ efiling@tonjahaddad.com\ Tonja Haddad, P.A.\ 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301\ Phone: (954)-467-1223\ Fax: (954)-337-3716\ Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein #### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.:50 2009 CA 040800)OCOGMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. , individually, Defendants, ## STATEMENT OF UNDI Cos Defendant I, Esq., o t gllowing specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the folio in is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein's required compli e Ia. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary j dgm evidence on which the adverse party relies."). All referenced exhibits and ait achments o4p. have previously been filed with the Court and provided to Epstein. ### Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein endant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of Jeffrey Ep ein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment #1).' When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, is entitled to the adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to him. "\[IP is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to ![](_page_15_Picture_12.jpeg) 2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" A: \[Invocation of the Fifth Amendment)); Deposi n of Jane Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl I Ily abused at least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Atta e ); id. 564-67 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal pen atin,ti by Epstein with a massager); Deposition of L.M., September 24, 2009, a (Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in wisi " LM was 13 years old, touching her vagina with " \\4 ge and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she ti es), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13 o being personally molested by Epstein she was pstein and she brought him more than seventy (70) e did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted was personally molested by Epstein more and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in paid \$200 per underage girl s underage girls - she told him tha hereinafter "L.M. Depo") em abused her beginning when that she continue t rin r S m underage girls); Deposition of E.W., May 6, 2010 (hereinafter "E.W. Depo' os on Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse of her begit t age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993). using a vibrator and he also paid her \$200 for each other underage female E.W. brought him to molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date (hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "Being fingered by him, having him use a vibrator on [me], grabbing my nipples, smelling my butt, jerking off in front of me, licking my it, several times."). 3. At all relevant times has had a good faith has' n> lude and did conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of undera gir s through a pyramid abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims \$200-\$300 each other underage victim that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police In rt at 87 (hereinafter "Incident Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Poli \\ ent Report details Epstein's scheme for molesting underage females. Among oth experiences of other Epstein victims. , a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to Epstein's home, she was taken a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The woman started to fix up 'utting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out. The "assistant" the c eft o th oom and told S.G. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein walked over t . told her to take her clothes off in a stem voice. S.G. states in the report she did not hat to do, as she was the only one there. S.G. took off her shirt, leaving her bra on. Ep Stein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. S.G. removed her pants leaving gs, the Incident Report outlines some of the 2 In support of all assertionsconcerning the actions took, what learned in the course of his representation of his clients, good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit. 3 For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #1, #2, #3, etc., while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, 13, C, etc. on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed S.G to give him a massage. As S.G gave Epstein a massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. S.G. was so disgusted, she did not say anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report, S.G. admitted seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a "really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id. at 15. 4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is kno y t Epstein. However, had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact beli v p tein's victims were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to de sition excerpts from two of his many victims above about the number of undera• brought to Epstein and the Palm Beach incident report, there is overwhelming i the number of underage girls molested by Epstein through his scheme was in Ae Ck nd y, ds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 comp (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443 pstein invoking the 5th on questions about his daily abuse and molestation of eposition Attachment #6). 1. At all rele t tim has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epste attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him onded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt to avoid th of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspon nce from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein case). 1. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. hi fact, there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 200 Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafafia sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") Z y L owitz, counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special reg mg numerous expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent p "The undersigned, as counsel for the Unite t of America and Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide i \\er/ma relevant to your service as a Special in the selection of an attinn/ey to represent several young women who may have civil damages,dlaints against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Burealikif Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have condupted an inVestigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor ferfialos\\ in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm/Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. B po the investigation, the United States has identified forty (40) y en who can be characterized as victims pursuant to 18 USC 225 So e of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home only once, some went th as much as 100 times or more. Some of the women's conduct W limited to performing a topless or nude massage while Mr. Epstein mastur14/tea himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to full sexuakilarourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has agreedithaqe would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida for arnKvictian who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Mr.'BRateiniagreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed "arluTively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special =. 7. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that L.M. was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because L.M. was one of the minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. L.M.'s sworn deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confirm that Epstein began sexually assaulting L.M. when she was 13 years old and continued to molest her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17 ("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with L.M.7" A: [Invocation the Fifth Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 45 was an underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that c [Invocation of Fifth Amendment].) 1. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to why he engaged in sexual activity with L.M. beginning when L.M. was 13 years w he has molested minors on an everyday basis for years, and he invoked 113\\ • amendment right rather than provide explanation. See Epstein Deposition, Ft'c 7, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition Attachment # 7). 1. Epstein also sex y a t dlted E.W., beginning when she was 14 years old and did so on numerous occasions. t itSe W. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216. 1. Ano, er of minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse began when J oe 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself, Epstein invoked the 5th amendm uestions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her vagina an asturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468. 1. When clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce tb nto going to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made E.W. perform oral sex perform sex acts on (Epstein's live-in sex slave) in Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of S Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379' 4a good faith basis to believe and did in fact E.W. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205. d was to presence. See ssault, filed in Jane inafter "Rule 413 Notice") Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; 1. At all relevant times believe that yet another of the min approximately 15 years old, C tein sexually assaulted was C.L. When she was tight to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was ,t Epstein s home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the folio g acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massag n; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presen fChfejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other underage ghis. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A." 1. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault was A.H. When she was approximately 16 years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she was at Epstein's borne on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to p sex acts on in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this u ge ictim, as he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her i x was screaming "No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, ExIiibk20, at 41 (specifically discussing the rape): "[A.H.] remembered that she climaxed and was ving herself from the massage table. [A.H.] asked for a sheet of a er an w the massage table in the bathroom and where Epstein, and she were. Epstein turned [ATI.] on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. [A.H.] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [A.H.] became upset over this. She said er,head was being held against the bed forcibly, as he continued to pump insidyhe escreamed no, and Epstein stopped ...." "[A.H.] advised there that she was so sore when she left Epstein's house. [A.H.] advised wa ripped, torn, in her vagina area. [A.H.] advised she had difficulty wal \*ng to e car after leaving the house because she was so sore." 14. Wi t de ing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage girls, a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times that Ep 'n used other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs. pstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls: S.G.; A.D.; V.A.; N.R.; J.S.; V.Z.; J.A.; F.E.; M.L.; M.D.; D.D.; and D.N. These girls were between the ages of 13 and 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E; Deposition of E.W., Deposition Attachment #4. 01. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See Rodriguez Depo. at 242-44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys" and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28. Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth o saw. Id. at 230-31.. e girls he 01. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's comput the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country acted many of e world, including locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, k, New Mexico, and Paris, France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal or " 1") (Exhibit "F") (identifying, among other Epstein acquaintances, females N ez believes were underage under the heading labeled "Massages"). ( S" 01. Rodriguez was later c Qg IIr6 criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in connection with trying to obtain 0,0O,(Yfrom civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Epstein as payme t for pro ucing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 2, U.S. v. Rodrigu ( s tyNo. :10-CR-80015-ICAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez stated he nee c7o because the journal was his "property" and that be was afraid that Jeffrey ' ould make him "disappear" unless be had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the journal). / at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases, Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail." 01. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint bad "no connection whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump); at 9 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands"). ## Federal Investigation and Plea Agreement With Epstein 19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. began a criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. S . Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C". 01. At all relevant times has had a good faith bas lieve and did in fact believe that to avoid the Government learning about his ab or girls, Epstein threatened his employees and demanded that they not cooperate s vernment. Epstein's aggressive witness tampering was so severe that the Unit ttomey's Office prepared negotiated plea agreements containing these charges. ple, in a September 18, 2007, email from AUSA Villafatla to Leflcowitz (atta as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein's Ines poring as follows: ## S vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER" On Augutt 2007, FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richa s ve d to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a federal grand a with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida. ro works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. Groff began speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. Groff from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the conversation with Ms. Groff, Mr. Epstein became concerned that the FBI would try to serve his traveling companion, , with subpoena. In fact, the agents were preparing to serve III a similar nd jury with a target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Isli ds instead of the New York Ci area thereb keeping the Special Agent s serving the target letter on . During the flight, th 4 dant verbally harassed MI, harassing and pressuring her not- perate with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and disku mg ei from reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to ft fa orcement officer namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also thret and harassed against cooperating against him as well. Ac t) 21. learned that the Palm Beach polj ent investigation ultimately led to the execution of a search warrant at Epst on in October 2005. See Police Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 01. learned that at (dS>th ame time, the Palm Beach Police Department also began investigating Epstein's se of minor girls. They also collected evidence of Epstein's involvement with j s and his obsession with training sex slaves, including pulling information'from 's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from Amazon.com on i t Sep ember 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by Jay Wisem Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy Baldwin, raining with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners, by Christina Abernithy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I"). 01. The Palm Beach incident reports provided with the names of numerous witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and bow addicted Epstein was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A". 24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redac the anonymity of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads sho that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple youngc 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per dad o protect ar indication een the ages of 01. In light of all of the information of nume learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office be charges against Epstein. For example, in a laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Offi page indictment of Epstein related t 12:14 PM, AUSA Villafaiia wr firm about this, but we n when this has dragj con f advantageous es committed by Epstein, g the filing of federal criminal to the witness tampering and money an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53 abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at Bin's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less 'on an before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53 tting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be an ending ate, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C." 01. learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges, Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to an indictment pending against him in the 15'h Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 o s of jail time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's agre d not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agree it "K"). 01. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein n tia was a provision in which the federal government agreed not to prosecute co-conspirators. The coconspirators procured minor females to be molested . One of the co-conspirators - Nadia Marcinkova -even participated in the sex 4lb fivnors (including E.W.) and Epstein. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, \\ 1; Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova, April 13, 2010, (hereinafter "Marcinkova Depo eposition attachment #9). 01. Under the Non- Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to enter into his guilty pleas b Octo r 26, 2007. However, learned that Epstein violated his agreement with ( S e U.S I ttomey's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter from U.S. Att R. exander Acosta to Lilly Ann a Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L"). 01. anuary 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008 E.W. and L.M. received letters from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the FBI did not notify E.W. and L.M. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would practicing as a sole practitioner. 31. In about April 2008, J. , Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, f prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that involved criminal acts, includi sea assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused — L.M., E.W., and Jane appropriate mone — all requested that represent them civilly and secure es against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were minor girls. ofBre girls (L.M. and E.W.) also requested that represent them in connec • a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's Office mi t be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify E.W. and L.M. of any of the parts of the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with E.W. and L.M. about the plea. See id. 30. In 2008, believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was extremely important to his clients E.W. and L.M. and that they desired to be co su ed by the FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the proset n o Epstein. The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, su a criminal investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be co before the federal government reached any final resolution of that investigatio Agrees to Serve as Legal Couns ee Victims of Epstein's Sexual Assaults Affidavit of J. Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter "M Affidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008, attorney agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney agreed to represent L.M. in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and sure that their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-goi amst Epstein. Mr. and his three clients executed written retention agreemen at ¶2. 01. In mid June of 2008, contacted AUSA Vill o inform her that he represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA did not advise that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epst Aeys that would block federal prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Vill 'oned a possible indictment. AUSA Villafaila did indicate that federal invest' sh A Id concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested mat in minor females, including E.W., LM, and Jane Doe. See id. at ¶4. 01. requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information that they had collected reg (NSg 5E tein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office, deer any su At the ve east, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See Property Receipt (Exhibit "O"). ide any such information to It similarly declined to provide on to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults. 01. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafalia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafafia called to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafatia did not tell Attorney that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursu ,t k, the plea agreement. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6. AS 36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U 771, victims of federal crimes — including E.W. and L.M. — are entitled to bas ghts during any plea bargaining process; including the right to be treated wi, the right to confer with prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be ing any plea. The process that was followed leading to the non-prosecution o violated these rights of E.W. and L.M. See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcetxen me Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736- 1CAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P' K Q 37. Because of the v olatio the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, filed an action in the U.S. District Court f ort e rSouthern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to enforce the rights E.W. d L.M. That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had failed to pro 1 W. nd L.M. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including the rig no fied about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See id. 01. On July 11, 2008, took E.W. and L.M. with him to the hearing on the CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008 (Exhibit "Q"). 01. learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Eps received in a criminal case. 01. The CVRA action that filed was recently admit rr)a st e y closed and filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV- 36 S.D. Fla.). ## Epstein's Entry of Guilty Pleas to S iii es 41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the udicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pl gu ty" to various Florida state crimes involving the solicitation of minors for p ti and the procurement of minors for the purposes of prostitution. See Plea Co ibit "R"). 01. As a condition a, and in exchange for the Federal Government not prosecuting the Defendant, Eps additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government ackno gin that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive payments fro er the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abu S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not pro cute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "S") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the minors involved). 01. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the a.vil cases against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly iat Defendant is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with an pkaintins . . . ." Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphas d d); see also Order, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added). ## Files Civil Suits 44. had a good faith belief t clients felt angry and betrayed by the criminal system and wished to prosecute Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to ugust 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad filed a civ suit a st Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See davit, "N" at ¶7. Included in this complaint was a RICO count that explain ow stein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to sexually abusq. plaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T"). E.W. v. Epstein (Exhibit "U"). ptember 11, 2008, at the request of his client E.W., Brad filed a civil suit against effrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of E.W. See Complaint, 46. On September I I, 2008, at the request of his client L.M.., Brad filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, L.M. v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V"). 01. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than \$50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in acc civil suits that were. filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Jane Doe 44 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Merrnelstei ith other e Complaint, 01. At about the same time as filed his three law ainst Epstein, other civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein ple, on or about April 14, 2008 another law firm, Herman and Mermelstein, f civil action against Epstein on behalf of one of its seven clients who were mo Epstein. The complaints that attorney Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients milar in tenor and tone to the complaint that filed on behalf of his three \) #### III THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 50 2009CA 040800>DOCXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHS'TE1N individually, and J. , individually, Defendants, As " 0 ## DEFENDANT JSED S'S RENEWED MOTION FOR FINAkc UMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant, J. by d through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.510, Florida Rul I Procedure, hereby moves for Final Summary Judgment and in support thereo as ollows: ## I. INTRODUCTION The pleadings an very taken to date show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts an J. , Esq. is entitled to summary judgment for all claims brought ag. in Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Second Amended Complaint. Not only is there an absen• of competent evidence to demonstrate that participated in any fraud against Epstein, the evidence uncontrovertibly demonstrates the propriety of every aspect of MI involvement in the prosecution of legitimate claims against Epstein. Epstein sexually abused three clients of — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — and properly and successfully ![](_page_66_Picture_11.jpeg) represented them in a civil action against Epstein. Nothing in capable and competent representation of his clients can serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit against him. Allegations about participation in or knowledge of the use of the civil actions against Epstein in a "Ponzi Scheme" are not supported by any competent evidence and could never be supported by competent evidence as they are entirely false. ## A. Epstein's Complaint Epstein's Second Amended Complaint essentially alleges that E damaged by acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Ro tein osenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where worked for a short period of ti pstein appears to allege that joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. by Epstein, investor victims were told by Rothstein that three minor girls who ly assaulted by Epstein: L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were to be paid up-front m event those girls from settling their civil cases against Epstein. In Epstein's 4se child sexual assault cases had "minimal value" (Complaint & 42(h)), and refusal to force his clients to accept modest settlement offers is claimed to breac states that he ac e duty that owed to Epstein. Interestingly, Epstein never ade any settlement offers. ed "proof' of the Complaint's allegations against includes a alleged contacts with the media, his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile persons with whom Epstein socialized, and use of "ridiculously inflammatory" language in arguments in court. Remarkably, Epstein has filed such allegations against despite the fact that Epstein had sexually abused each of M's clients and others while they were minors. Indeed, in discovery Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer questions about the extent of the sexual abuse of his many victims. Even more remarkably, since filing his suit against, Epstein has now settled the three cases handled for an amount that Epstein insisted be kept confidential. Without violating the strict confidentiality terms required by Epstein, the cases did not settle for the "minimal value" that Epstein suggested in his Complaint. Because Epstein relies upon the aneg d diicrepancy between the "minimal value" Epstein ascribed to the claims and the subitaxi\* value sought to recover for his clients, the settlement amounts Epstein voljptarily agreed to pay while these claims against were pending will be disclosed 'urt in-camera. ## B. Summary of the Argument J. Esq., is entitled to su j gtnent on Epstein's frivolous claim for at least three separate reasons. First, because Epstein has el de behind the shield of his right against self incrimination to preclude his disel relevant information about the criminal activity at the center of his claims, he isted from prosecuting this case against . Under the well-established "sword Zll eMeld" doctrine, Epstein cannot seek damages from at the same tit must ther issed. while 'ng a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. His case d, all of conduct in the prosecution of valid claims against Epstein is protected by the litigation privilege. Third, and most fundamentally, Epstein's lawsuit should be dismissed because it is not only unsupported by but is also directly contradicted by all of the record evidence. From the beginning, diligently represented three victims of sexual assaults perpetrated by Epstein. As explained in detail below, each and every one of M's litigation decisions was grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery against Epstein, particularly in the face of Epstein's stonewalling tactics. successful representation finally forced Epstein to settle and pay appropriate damages. Effectiv nd proper representation of child victims who have been repeatedly sexually assaulte not orm the basis of a separate, "satellite" lawsuit, and therefore is entitled t judgment on these grounds as well. The truth is the record is entirely devoid of any evid - upport Epstein's claims and is completely and consistently corroborative of simply, Epstein has.made allegations that have n ct. To the contrary, his lawsuit was merely a desperate measure by a serial to prevent being held accountable for repeatedly sexually abusing minor f stein's ulterior motives in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit are blatantly obvio c :. ott) 's behavior is another clear demonstration that he feels he lives above the law and that use of his wealth he can manipulate the system and pay for lawyers to do his cl even to the extent of having them assert baseless claims against other membep c lorida Bar. Epstein's Second Amended Complaint against is nothing ,..... s' 'La far-fetched fictional fairy-tale with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support \\ h s preposterous claims. It was his last ditch effort to escape the public disclosure by and his clients of the nature, extent, and sordid details of his life as a serial child molester. Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted without equivocation. assertion of innocence. Put ### ARGUMENT H. IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN'S CLAIM BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATERIAL DISPUTED FACTS AND THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH THAT CONDUCT COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM THE BASIS OF ANY LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN ### A. The Summary Judgment Standard. Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a co judgment when the pleadings, depositions and factual showings rev issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to ju C e a matter of law. See v. Cheezem Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 7 DCA 1979); Rule 1.510(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. Once the moving party conclusively conclusively S S 's that the nonmoving party cannot prevail, it is incumbent on the nonmoving p to bmit evidence to rebut the motion for summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott 1 S d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert i of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Mil o.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same). rater summary e is no genuine Moreover, it is -recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary judgment motio porte8 by appropriate proof may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions found in the ngs to create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party must counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See Bryant v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985); see also Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, 141 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d Dist Ct. App. 1962) (recognizing that mere contrary allegations of complaint were not sufficient to preclude summary judgment on basis of facts established without dispute). Where the nonmoving party fails to present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. ## B. Epstein's Claim Regarding Have Absolutely No Factual Basis. This is not a complicated case for granting summary judgment. To the contr, this is a simple case for summary judgment because each and every one of Epste g claii against lacks any merit whatsoever.' - 1. Epstein's allegations regarding involvement in Rothstein's "Ponzi Scheme" are unsupported and unsupportab ecause he was simply not involved in any such scheme. ## a. Had No Involvement in the Pfzl\$theme. The bulk of Epstein's claims against hinge on the premise that was involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott R in. road allegations of wrongdoing on the part of are scattered willy-nilly SRr tit the complaint. None of the allegations provide any substance as to how "knew or should have known" existence are based upon an impermissible pyramiding of 'y assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he inferences. In any gyent, allegations all fail for one straightforward reason: was simply not inv ed tt >any Ponzi scheme. He has provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in support ofilakassertion, and there is not (and could never be) any contrary evidence. EM has now been deposed at length in this case. As his deposition makes crystal clear, he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein may have been A decision by the Court to grant summary judgment on Epstein's claims against would not affect Epstein's claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein has already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the only other defendant named in the suit. involved. See, e.g., Depo. at 301-02 (Q: " . . . [W]ere you aware that Scott Rothstein was trying to market Epstein cases ... ?" A: "No."). has supplemented his deposition answers with an Affidavit that declares in no uncertain terms his lack of involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein. See, e.g., Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as Exhibit ' ' at ¶8-10, ¶20, ¶22-23. Indeed, no reasonable juror could find that was involve e s eme, as joined RRA well after Rothstein began his fraud and would havelieetn 1r ady deeply in, " _ debt. In fact, the evidence of Epstein's crimes is now clear, and Nap actions in this case were entirely in keeping with his obligation to provide thcsicigli t possible quality of legal representation for his clients to obtain the best result po In view of this clear evidence rebutting,aI i ega ons against him, Epstein must now "produce counter-evidence establishing a Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., cannot do this. Indeed, when asL eposition whether he had any evidence of involvement, Epstein declined t e line of material fact." See Bryant v. Shandy 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Epstein er, purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds: S ant to Imo w ether you have any knowledge of evidence that personally er participated in devising a plan through which were sold purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement? . . . A. I'd like1to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported that his firth was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect to my personal knowledge, I'm unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to at some point being able to disclose it, today I'm going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege. See Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") at 67-68. Therefore summary judgment should be granted for on all claims involving any Ponzi scheme by Rothstein. ### b. Epstein's Allegations of Negligence by are Unfounded and Not Actionable in Any Event. In his Second Amended Complaint Epstein recognizes at least the possibility that was not involved in any Rothstein Ponzi scheme. Therefore, seemingly as a fallback, Epstein alleges without explanation that "should have known" about istence of this concealed Ponzi scheme. Among other problems, this fallback negli: 'sition suffers the fatal flaw that it does not link at all to the intentional tort of abu ss alleged in the complaint. Epstein's negligence claim is also deficient b C u ,) simply fails to satisfy the requirements for a negligence cause of action: "Four elements are necessary to sust aaCne a \\ gligence claim: 1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by the lawkrretiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for-the protection of others against unreasonable risks. 2. A failure on the [defenclapts],part to conform to the standard required: a breach of the duty . . . . ank. reasonably close causal connection between he conduct and the resulting \*try) This is what is commonly known as 'legal --.., cause,' or 'proximate use,' and which includes the notion of cause in fact. 4. Actual loss or damage. Curd v. Mosaic Fertilize So.2d, 2010 WL 2400384 at \*9 (Fla. 2010). Epstein does not alle icular duty on the part of that has been breached. Nor does Epstein e• 1 any breach of the duty might have proximately caused him actual damages. Surnm udgment is therefore appropriate for these reasons as well. Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is worth noting briefly that no reasonable jury could find to have been negligent in failing to anticipate that a managing partner at his law firm would be involved in an unprecedented Ponzi scheme. Scott Rothstein deceived not only but also more than 60 other reputable lawyers at a major law firm. Cf . Sun Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Dec. 11, 2009, 2009 WLNR 25074193 at \*1 ("Sure, some outlandish John Grisham murder plot[s] sound far-fetched. But if you asked me a few months ago if Scott Rothstein was fabricating federal court orders and forging a judge's signature on documents to allegedly fleece his friends, as federal prosecutors allege, I would have said that was ar-fetched, too."). No reasonable lawyer could have expected that a fellow member oft w Id have been involved in such a plot. Nobody seemed to know of Rothstein's Pot, not even his best friends, or the people he did business with on a daily basis, or s wife. Many of the attorneys at RRA had been there for years and knew nothing was a lawyer at ERA for thstein during his time at the firm, yet Epstein claims that he should have kn tein's intricate Ponzi scheme. No doubt for this reason the U.S. Attorney ce g now listed as a "victim" of less than 8 months and had very few personal encoun Rothstein's crimes. See Statement of L d Facts filed contemporaneously. Epstein's Complaint do any specific reason why a jury would conclude that was negligent, and he chose not to offer any explanation of his claim at his deposition. Accordingly, tiitled to summary judgment to the extent the claim against him is somehow dependent upon his negligence in failing to discover Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. - 2. is Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent the Claim Against Him is Dependent on Allegations Regarding "Pumping the Cases" Because He Was Properly Pursuing the Interests of His Three Clients Who Had Been Sexually Abused by Epstein. Epstein alleges that cases he had filed against Epstein. somehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil represented three young women — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — by filing civil suits against Epstein for his sexual abuse of them while they were minors. Epstein purports to find a cause of action for this by alleging that was involved in "'pumping' these three cases to investors." somehow As just explained, to the extent that Epstein is alleging that somehow did something related to the Ponzi scheme, those allegations fail for the simple reason that was not involved in any such scheme. , for example, could not have possibl "pumped" the cases to investors when he never participated in any communication with irtiv ors. Epstein's "pumping" claims, however, fail for an even more basic reason./ was \\ entitled — indeed ethically obligated as an attorney — to secure theinaximum recover), for his clients during the course of his legal representation. As own, "[a]s an advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the of Prof. Conduct, Preamble. instructed by his clients) a maximum tee liable for doing something that his therefi adversary system." Fla. Rules quired to pursue (unless otherwise st Epstein. as an attorney required .2 , therefore, cannot be Another reason that E tam fails is that of Scott Rothstein. Ep allegations for virtually can see fkjtself that all of the facts alleged by ms that filed all ti Tetei e2es almost a year before he was hired by RRA or even knew was "pumping" cases for investors makes allegations that the complaints contained sensational oses of luring investors; however, language in the complaints remained from the first filing in 2008 and from the overwhelming evidence the Court in the complaints were true. Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases filed against him for more money than he paid to settle any of the other claims against him. At Epstein's request, the terms 2 In a further effort to harass Epstein also filed a bar complaint with the Florida Bar against Florida Bar has dismissed that complaint. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. . The of the settlement were kept confidential. The sum that he paid to settle all these cases is therefore not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for in-camera review. Epstein chose to make this payment as the result of a federal court ordered mediation process, which he himself sought (over the objection of Jane Doe, ' client in federal court) in an effort to resolve the case. See Defendant's Motion for Settlement Conferenc or in the Alternative, Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation, Doe v. Epstein, N 8- -80893 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2010) (Marra, J.) (doe. #168) attached hereto as " ". Notably, Epstein sought this settlement conference — and ultimately made his s as a result of that conference - in July 2010, more than seven months after he t ed a is lawsuit against Accordingly, Epstein could not have been the victim o e to "pump" the cases against him, because he never paid to settle the cases 11 r had left RRA and had severed all connection with Scott Rothstein Sr 2009). In addition, if Epstein had tho atahere was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his r C to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was pr ' g over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein simply chose to s that as He is therefore now barred by the doctrine of res judicata from somehow re-1 hat happened in (for example) the Jane Doe case. "The doctrine of res judicata itdgment on the merits conclusive 'not only as to every matter which was offered a eceived to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action." AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept. of Transp., So.2d 2010 WL 1542634 at \*2 (Fla. 14 Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kiinbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984). Obviously, any question of improper "pumping" of a particular case could have been resolved in that very case rather than now re-litigated in satellite litigation. ### 3. is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Claim of Abuse of Process Because He Acted Properly Within the Boundaries of the Law in Pursuit of the Legitimate Interests of his Clients. Epstein's Second Amended Complaint raises several claims of "abuse of pr cess." An abuse of process claim requires proof of three elements: "(1) that the defen ade illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; (2) that the defendant had ulterior oh ^fir purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; and t, as a result of such action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered d & I Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. (internal citation omitted). In fact, this Court is very familiar with this cause o as has correctly stated this cause in his counterclaim against Epstein. is entitled to summary judgment because Epstein cannot prove these elements. The first element of process claim is that a defendant made "an illegal, improper, or perverted use of p ees." On the surface, Epstein's Complaint appears to contain several allegations of s roper process. On examination, however, each of these allegations a nothing other than a claim that Epstein was unhappy with some discov g, motion or argument made by This is not the stuff of an abuse of process c, particularly where Epstein fails to allege that he was required to do something as the result of pursuit of the claims against him. See Marty v. Gresh, 501 So.2d 87, 90 (Fla. lm Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (affirming summary judgment on an abuse of process claim where "appellant's lawsuit caused appellee to do nothing against her will"). In any event, none of the allegations of "improper" process can survive summary judgment scrutiny, because every action took was entirely proper and reasonably calculated to lead to the successful prosecution of the pending claims against Epstein as detailed in =' Affidavit. Epstein also fails to meet the second element of an abuse of process claim: t t had some sort of ulterior motive. The case law is clear that on an abuse ces claim a "plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate p e than that for which it was designed." MI Investments v. Payless Flea Market, I So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Biondo v. Powers, 805 So.2d . 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2002). As a consequence, "[w]here the process was used t the result for which it was N intended, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose, there is no \`.. \\0\\01 abuse of process." Id. (internal quotatioi,bmitt ). Here, has fully denied any improper motive, See Statement of U. Facts, and Epstein has no evidence of any such motivation. Indeed, it is reveal' tein chose not to ask even a single question about this subject during the deposition o ... In addition, all of the actions that Epstein complains about were in fact used fo e mmediate purpose of furthering the lawsuits Sled by L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. words, these actions all were both intended to accomplish and, in fact, successful plished the results for which they were intended" -- whether it was securing addition scovery or presenting a legal issue to the court handling the case or ultimately maximizing the recovery of damages from Epstein on behalf of his victims. Accordingly, is entitled to summary judgment on any claim that he abused process for this reason as well. - 4. is Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent His Claim is Based On Pursuit of Discovery Concerning Epstein's Friends Because All Such Efforts Were Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Relevant and Admissible Testimony About Epstein's Abuse of Minor Girls. Epstein has also alleged that improperly pursued discovery from some his close friends. Such discovery, Epstein claims, was improper because knew that these individuals lacked any discoverable information about the sexual assault cases a pstein. Here again, is entitled to summary judgment, as each of Winds of Epstein were reasonably believed to possess discoverable information. The,.tzl dfaacts show the following with regard to each of the persons raised in Epstein's c - With regard to Donald Trump, Trump had relevant and discoverable Facts. egal basis for believing Mr. See Statement of Undisputed - With regard to Alan Dershowitz1-1 d Law Professor), had sound legal basis for believing \