Draft: efta02775446

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<zo n had no relevant and material discovery that Epstein would need in the course of ro • g his claims and to which was entitled in defending those claims. Epstein kne that • rosectition of his claims would be barred by the sword-shield doctrine. Most sigryifi he evidence submitted in the supporting papers would compel a fact finder to detenu in had no basis in law or in fact to pursue his claims against to intimidate less than their just and reasonable value A for the purpose of collecting moC consequence of any alleged wro _ iiii, by time, energy and resources and his clients and oth II'to abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for nee demonstrates that Epstein did not file these claims s since he knew that he never suffered any damage as a but filed the claim to require to expend own defense, to embarrass and impugn his integrity and deter others with legit h claims against Epstein from pursuing those claims. Indeed, the evidence demonstra s pstein continued to pursue his claims by filing the Second Amended Complaint allegi f process against even after he had paid significant sums in settlement of the claims instituted by Mr. M' clients against Mr. Epstein.' and that Epstei otivated by a single ulterior motive to attempt¶

I The evidence marshalled in support of these assertions is set forth in the previously filed docuiiiiiihis Court. Those documents include Exhibit "A" — Statement of Undisputed Facts; Exhibit "B" — Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; Exhibit "C" — ctober 19, 2012 Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Asse Clai unitive Damages; Exhibit "IT of Notice of piling of Transcript of Telephone Interview Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein dated January 25, 2012; Exhibit "F' — Deposition of in Support of Motion for Leave to Amended to Assert Punitive Damageseili dated March 23, 2010; Exhibit "G" - Deposition of Scott Rothstein dated June 14, 2012; Exhibit "H" — Order of¶

The record reflects that on the eve of the hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment directed to the Second Amended Complaint and in light of the compelling evidence of the lack of any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. the sole remaining abuse of process claim was dismissed by Epstein.¶

As discussed, infra each of the grounds asserted by Epstein in this Moti Summary Judgment must be rejected. The litigation privilege does not serve as a bar to the o Lion of M' claims against Epstein. Moreover, the evidence submitted by su of the elements of the claims asserted by against Epstein which are identified in Ep otion.¶

Response to Enstein's Statement of U ut Facts¶

The evidence marshalled by in sup claims against Epstein which are referenced in footnote 1 mandates the conclusion th \taCtn 40 in um, disputed facts exist with respect to the elements of each claim addressed by Epstei his lion. The facts presented in the various papers would allow the jury to make a determin stein knew that Brad properly exercised his legitimate judgment regarding the sue proper and effective discovery against him to support the claims which Epstein knew re I timate. That evidence, referenced herein, further demonstrated that Epstein filed his clain v i taut probable cause and further that there was a bonafide termination in favor of have been es tat evidhnce further demonstrates that the elements of the claim of abusive process¶

ing additional comments are directed at some of the key purported "undisputed" material facts asserted by Epstein, especially those referenced in his Memorandum of Law. Also set forth are key evidentiary matters which undermine Epstein's contentions and which support the proposition that material issues of fact exist which compel the denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment.¶

Judge MI dated Ivii.211.Exhibit "1" — Deposition of dated October 10, 2013; Exhibit "J" — Deposition of dated May 15, 2013.¶

None of the public materials identified by Epstein in his Motion make reference to any wrongdoing by Brad Rather, Epstein seeks to pyramid one impermissible inference upon another from his citation to these materials to support his otherwise unsubstantiated and non-verifiable conclusion that he had sufficient evidence to proceed with claims of wrongdoing against . In truth, as reflected in M' deposition and his supplemental affidavit, he has no* o nt in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein ( deposition of March 23, 2010 at 30 ilit• Affidavit 7 attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "N" at paragraphs lb,Nitagjaph 20, paragraphs 22-23; Exhibit "H" — Deposition of Scott Rothstein at pp. 62-63, 114, 1-124). Therefore, any allegations relating to Rothstein's activities simply have no against participated in any communications with investors. Ast & could not have possibly pursue discovery to achieve a maximum reco appropriate action that his ethical duties filed all three of his cases almos fore he was hired by RRA or even knew Scott Rothstein (Mt Affidavit, Exhibit " ed to Statement of Undisputed Facts). The language set forth in his Complaints remain vi nchanged from the first filing in 2008 and, as the evidence shows, the Nagai Epstein. legitimacy of any of the claims cases to investors when he never had a duty to his clients to zealously cannot be liable for taking ey required. The evidence also reflects that claims asserted st Epstein from the outset were true. The citation to public documents is a convenient r tein was not only liable for the molestation of the clients of Brad he was also molester of minors — even as young as twelve years of age (Exhibit "A" — Statement of Undisputed Material Facts paragraphs 1-43; Exhibit "D" — Statement of Virginia Roberts pp. 16-17). Epstein entered a plea of guilty to felony charges involving prostitution and the solicitation of a minor for the purposes of prostitution (Exhibit "E" — Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, March 17, 2010, pp. 101-103). Epstein also entered into an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office acknowledging that approximately 34 other young girls could receive payments from him under the¶

Federal Statute providing for compensation to victims of child abuse.. (Exhibit "A" — Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 41-43).¶

On July 6, 2010 Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases had filed against him (Exhibit "A" — Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 84-85). t Epstein's request, the terms of the settlement were kept confidential. The sum that he paid to se hese cases in therefore not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for result in e eview. Epstein f chose to make this payment as a of a Federal Court ordered media' t which he himself sought. Epstein entered into the settlements in July 2010 more than se l*eibeLiths i . after lie filed his lawsuit against August 22, 2011. and before he filed his Second Amend nt alleging abuse of process on¶

Further, Epstein could not have been the a y scheme to pump the cases against him because he never paid to settle the cases until had left RRA and severed all connection with Rothstein in December 2009 idavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "N," paragraph 20). Mot b p in could not have suffered any damage as a result of the perpetration of the Ponzi scheme thstein because he was not an investor in the scheme.¶

Perhaps the most s *cant evidence presented in opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment is the t? one interview of Punitive D "D"). In addition to the specious claims against relating to his allege ent in a Ponzi scheme, Epstein, in asserting his claims, primarily relied upon the pursuit by of testimony from his close friends and associates (See Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 32, pp. 11-13). Reliance on these assertions is also threaded through Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment in his citation to the public documents referencing the pursuit of such discovery. But as set forth in detail in M' Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Exhibit "B") at pages 14-16, that discovery was entirely appropriate and Epstein knew it. Specifically, as reflected in the statement of submitted in Support of Motion for¶

undisputed facts submitted by Mr. in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill (Exhibit "A" — Statement of Undisputed Facts, paragraphs 69-81). That belief s reinforced by the testimony of (Exhibit "D" pp. 10-17, 21-23). Epstcin's asse n propriety in the pursuit of this discovery clearly evidences his bad faith attempts to tt wrongdoing to when he knew, in fact, that the pursuit of that discovery was t t e ropriate under the circumstances of this case. had relevant and discoverable information¶

Finally, any attempt by Epstein to rely upon what lie undisputed facts to support his Motion for Summary Judgment are undermined by his r 'de any testimony on the key issues and evidence which would demonstrate the valid' rength of each of the claims brought against him by Brad . Epstein's depositions ch, 2010 and January 25, 2012 were replete with refusals of Epstein to testify based upon ✓Amendment privilege. Questions that Epstein refused to answer in his depositions and t ,rea ^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 17^th 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¶

¶

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).

5. 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).

6. 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].)

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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;

12. 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."

13. 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.

15. 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

16. 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"

17. 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."

18. 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".

20. 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".

22. 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").

23. 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

25. 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."

26. 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").

27. 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).

28. 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").

29. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

38. 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").

39. 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.

40. 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").

42. 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).

43. 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").

47. 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,

48. 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 <t n t, ee id.

49. Over the next year nd a h, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by various attorneys against ottein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were also similar in ten, d to to the complaint that filed on behalf of his clients. These complaints ub c record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files and the e U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

50. addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York, Ava, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other ways when she was only 16 years old. was born a male, and in her complaint she alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at: httn://www.nynost.comininews/regional/item 44z1WvLUFH7R1OUtKYGPbP;isessioni d=6CA3 EBF1BEF68F5DEI4BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "

51. three complaints against Epstein contained less ddlJY about sexual abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Jose Iksikerg from the law firm of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhi ' "B"). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old wh ne Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epste to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flits'n " er all over the world. According to the Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to Ii hoC and was forced to have sex with businessmen, royalty, academi n of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years axwell and Epstein but also other politicians, She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with three 12-year-old rls that were sent to him for his birthday by a citizen that is a friend of Epstein's ucld, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and Maxwell's s < b .

learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against Epstein, at ound the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y."¶

Attachments 1, 6 and 7. 54. During the discovery phase of the ci c fled against Epstein, Epstein's deposition was taken at least five times. D of ose depositions, Epstein refused to answer any substantive questions about bi se al abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition AS s¶

Epstein's Obstruction of Normal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims¶

S3. Once filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶ 11-19 and d2¶

Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and nspiracy for procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amen it against selfincrimination. An example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attache yomposite Exhibit "Z" (original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses 5th amendment).¶

55. During these dOj ositi Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate questioning by insertin variiT9 of irrelevant information about his case. As one of innumerable exam, on arch 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's 2-8, asked, "•. 00A, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that que.stio d like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however, upon advi of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Herman, was disbarred after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. partner sits in jail for fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of millions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if I--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10).

56. When had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he fly asked reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases ag pst in. All depositions of Epstein in which Mr. participated on behalf of i are attached to this motion. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 1 1 and Depositi att bhments #1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by y representing BB (one in which was not participating), h •//www watch7v=V-d oE YXx4; and http://vvww.youtubc.com/watch?v=YCNilaW-

57. efforts to obta o ation about Epstein's organization for procuring young girls was also byack EEauuse Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth. Deposition of, arc 4, 2010 (hereinafter "= Depo.") (Deposition attachment #14); Deposi 'on of April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9); Deposition of, March 15, 2010 (hereinafter' Depo.") (Deposition attachment # Ea of these co-conspirators invoked their respective rights against selfincrimi atm all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached.

58. At all relevant times has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe was an employee of Epstein's and had been identified as a defendant in at least one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart bad previously been an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein was being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's pilots an ertain coconspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See Affidavit, E `N" at ¶11.

59. also had other lines of legitimate discovery bl through the efforts of Epstein and others. For example, learned through deposit s that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companie manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at pag #16); See deposition of Epstein's housekeeper position of Epstein's house 20-23 (Deposition Attachment, October 20, 2009, page 9, lines 17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Del-if:460a Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, pate 302j3,06 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince j.L.; Andrew's Friend, Ghisl • e Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story, 2007 by Wendy Leigh, link at http://www. iiii( crons.com/article.php?id=1895OHANNA . Exhibit "AA". September

do Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls' knowledge kept the images on her computer, knew the names of the underage girls and their respective phone numbers and other underage victims were molested by Epstein and Maxwell together. See Deposition of Rodriguez, Deposition attachment # 8 at 64, 169-170 and 236.¶

61. In reasonable reliance on this and other information, served Maxwell for deposition in 2009. See Deposition Notice attached as Exhibit "BB." Maxwell was represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of and Gresser, and understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was reluctant to give her deposition, and tried to work with her attorney to take her deposition orilterms that would be acceptable to both sides. The result was the attached confidentiali Tit, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any objections to the deposition, attache ibit "CC." Maxwell, however, contrived to avoid the deposition. On June 10, one day before was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, ey informed that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was \ n tly flying to England with no intention of returning to the United States. Desp A na ion, Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country on July 31, 2010, as she de the wedding of Chelsea Clinton (former President Clinton's daughter) and w in a photograph taken for OK magazine. Photos from Issue 809 of the publicati Weekly dated August 16, 2010 are attached hereto as Exhibit "DD" and, Exhibit "N" at ¶12.

62. Max l e only important witness to lie to avoid deposition by Upon review . age pads that were taken from Epstein's home in the police trash pulls, see Exhibit ' pra, many were from Jean Luc Brunel, a citizen and one of Epstein's closest pal He left messages for Epstein. One dated 4/1/05 said, "He has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak Russian. She is 2x8 years old, not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 1M today if you call." See Messages taken from Jean Luc Brunel are attached hereto as Exhibit "EE." In light of these circumstances of the case, this message reasonably suggested to

that Brunel might have been procuring two eight-year-old girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. According to widely circulated press reports reviewed by Brunel is in his sixties and has a reputation throughout the world (and especially in the modeling industry) as a cocaine addict that has for years molested children through modeling agencies while acting as their agent — conduct that has been the subject of critical reports, books, several e s articles, and a 60 Minutes. documentary on Brunel's sexual exploitation of unde od Is. See httn://bradmillershero.blogsnot.com/2010/08/women-are-objects.html a 'ereto as Exhibit¶

63. learned that Brunel is also approximately 67 occasions while Epstein was in jail Ne, ein's jail visitor log attached as Exhibit "GO." that visited Epstein on

64. learned that Brunel to tAt1 runs / the modeling agency MC2, a company for which Epstein provides financiaJ,sup See Message Pad's attached as Exhibit "J" supra and Sworn Statement of MC2 eniplo6 Maritza Vasquez, June 15, 2010, "Maritza Vasquez Sworn Statement" attach at Exhi tt "111-1" at 1-16.

65. Em oyees MC2 told that Epstein's numerous condos at 301 East 66 Street in Ne used to house young models. was told that MC2 modeling agency a with Epstein and Brunel brought underage girls from all over the world, promising em modeling contracts. Epstein and Brunel would then obtain a visa for these girls, then would charge the underage girls rent, presumably to live as underage prostitutes in the condos. See Maritza Vasquez Sworn Statement, Exhibit "H:H" at 7-10, 12-15, 29-30, 39-41, 59- 60 and 62-67.

66. In view of this information suggesting Brunel could provide significant evidence of Epstein's trafficking in young girls for sexual abuse, had Brunel served in New York for deposition. See Notice of Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel attached hereto as Exhibit "II." Before the deposition took place, Brunel's attorney (Tama Kudman of West Palm Beach) contacted to delay the deposition date. Eventually Kudman informed in January 2009 that Brunel had left the country and was back in France with p ans 6 return. This information was untrue; Brunel was actually staying with Epstein in 1 Beach. See Banasiak deposition, deposition attachment #16 at 154-160 and 17 75; see also pages from Epstein's probation file evidencing Jean Luc Brunel (JLB at his house during that relevant period of time attached Exhibit "JJ". As a re filed a Motion for Contempt, attached hereto as Exhibit "KK" (Because Epste\ . Act..dN is case, the motion was never ruled upon.)

67. was also in pstein paid for not only Brunel's representation during the civil process but illst or legal representation for (Epstein's executive assistant and procurer girls for him to abuse), Larry Visoski (Epstein's personal pilot), Dave Rogers 's personal pilot), Larry (Epstein's personal pilot), ekeeper), (Epstein's live-in sex slave), Ghislaine Maxwell of Epstein's affairs and businesses), Mark Epstein (Epstein's brother), and Janusz B iak (Epstein's house manager) It was nearly impossible to take a deposition of someone that would have helpful information that was not represented by an attorney paid for by Epstein. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11.

68. While Epstein and others were preventing any legitimate discovery into his sexual abuse of minor girls, at the same time be was engaging (through his attorneys) in brutal questioning of the girls who had filed civil suits against him, questioning so savage that it made local headlines. See Jane Musgrave, Victims Seeking Sex offender's Millions See Painful Pasts Used Against Them, Palm Beach Post News, Jan. 23, 2010, v 'lable at http://www.palmbeachnost.cotn/news/crime/victims-seeking-sex-offenders- see-painfulpasts-192988.html attached hereto as Exhibit "LL."

Pursues Other Lin o Di cove¶

69. Because of Epstein's thwarting of discov was forced to pursue other avenues of disc ''4 discovery designed to further the cases filed a gS , ,ps ein. "N" at ¶1,11. See cks on clients, only pursued legitimate Affidavit, Exhibit

70. notified Eps eys of his intent to take Bill Clinton's deposition. possessed a legitim as or doing so: (a) Clinton was friends with Chislaine Maxwell who was Epst • 's Ion me companion and helped to run Epstein's companies, kept images of naked c rag hildren on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein, eng in bian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and photogra rage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her computer; ) it was national news when Clinton traveled with Epstein aboard Epstein's private plane to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend. (c) the complaint filed on behalf of Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into. The flight logs showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005. See Flight logs attached hereto as Exhibit "MM." Clinton traveled on many of those flights with Ghislaine Maxwell, and NM, - all employees and/or co-consiirators of Epstein's that were closely connected to Epstein's child exploitation and s abdse. The documents clearly show that Clinton frequently flew with Epstein a his plane, then suddenly stopped - raising the suspicion that the friendship abruptly de, perhaps because of events related to Epstein's sexual abuse of children. Epste* I phone directory from his computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton alon one numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his sched als, r d what appear to be Clinton's personal numbers. This information certainly leads relevant information and efforts to o to admissible evidence. See E, "F" "AA", "DD", and "MM" and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶15. ieve that Clinton might well be a source of very from him were reasonably calculated to lead

71. 'r imJ. , Esq., provided notice that he intended to take the deposition of Donald Tn possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) The message pads confisc NitEpstein's home indicated that Trump called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion several occasions during the time period most relevant to my clients' complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it --

Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; Hes pals with a passel of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislainc Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder who he is. By Landon Jr. (See article attached hereto as Exhibit "NN") ) Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach becaus tem sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's compl that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by Ghislaine M a re and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (c) Mark Epstei Epstein's brother) testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with him 'lane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with underage girls); (f) T N onuts p been to Epstein's home in Palm Beach; (g) Epstein's phone directory from his corn • 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car, and numbers to Trump's security guard and i . houseman. Based on this inf atio reasonably believed that Trump might have relevant information to ptovide ilv in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposi • n. See deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009, at 48-50 e (Deposition ent #19); See Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, Exhibit "B"; Exhibit "F"; "Exhibi "J"- nd See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶13.¶

72. provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Dershowitz is believed to have been friends with Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky on January, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity Fair (See article attached as Exhibit "OO"); (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at Epstein's house during the years when Epstein was assaulting minor females on a daily basis; (d) Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there being molested by Epstein (see Alfred odriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-427); (e) Dershowitz reportedly assiste pting to persuade the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office that because the and ales alleged to have been victims of Epstein's abuse lacked credibility and could not U ieved that they were at Epstein's house, when Dershowitz himself was an eyewi to heir presence at the house; (0 Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein for sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and cquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall tht ring the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on Epstein's plane on several o asior3 ccorcling to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot and information (descri d above suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the plane; (h) Epstein at on ed 0 Million one year to the university at which Dershowitz teaches. Based on thi ' t7 li y, had a reasonable basis to believe that Dershowitz might have releS'foirmation '...&. to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided n ice of a possible deposition. See Dershowitz letters to the State Attorney's office attached as Exhibit "PP"; Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez at 278-280; Flight Logs Exhibit "MM"; Exhibits "B" and "OO"; and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶14.

73. Epstein's complaint alleges that provided notice that he wished to take the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 116.

74. gave notice that he intended to take David Copperfield' position. possessed a legitimate basis for doing so. Epstein's housekeeper e of the only witnesses who did not appear for deposition with an Epstein bought atto edo Rodriguez, testified that David Copperfield was a guest at Epstein's house on se al ccasions. His name also appears frequently in the message pads confiscated tein's house. It has been publicly reported that Copperfield himself has bad alle exual misconduct made against him by women claiming be sexually abused th one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield had touched4ie t improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. Mr. Copperfield l ly b r levant information and deposition was reasonably x-AtcaT calculated to lead to the discovery of a esible evidence. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶17.

75. Epst also es issue with identifying Bill as a possible witness. properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot t joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. There was information indicating that Epstein bad young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls as he had abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. had also returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, indicating that he believed that there was something about Epstein

with which he did not want to be associated. was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 98.¶

76. learned of allegations that Epstein engaged in sexual abuse of minors on his private aircraft. See Jane Doe 102 Complaint, Exhibit "B." Accordingly, pursued discovery to confirm these allegations.

77. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was proper in the cases brr t by against Epstein. Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epst an active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane trave gh Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal the legal team representing clients intended to pursue an appeal UXdismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained re v to other aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her c)aim Cmitive damages. See Affidavit, Exhibit `NT at 1119.

78. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was also proper in the cases brought by against E tein b ause of the need to obtain evidence of a federal nexus. client Jane piDceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a fed which (unlike relevant state statutes) established a minimum level of recovery for victims f the violation of its provisions. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his use of telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation,

anticipated that Epstein would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument. In response, the other attorneys and representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight logs demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose cilitating his sexual assaults.• Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial, J did not rule on the summary judgment motion.¶

79. bad further reason to believe and did in fac flight logs might contain relevant evidence for the cases a complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation 12 years old and alleged that Epstein's plane sexually abused by him and his friends. information about either additional Epstein who may- have wi e that the pilot and tein. Jane Doe No. 102's of underage minors as young as d to transport underage females to be • S t ogs accordingly were a potential source of were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends of even participated in the abuse. Based on this information, nably pursued the flight logs in discovery.

80. In t fall o 009, Epstein gave a recorded interview to Rush, a reporter with the Ne zly News about pending legal proceedings. In that interview, Epstein demon tter lack of remorse for his crimes (but indirectly admitted his crimes) by stating:

• People do not like it when people make good and that was one reason he (Epstein) was being targeted by civil suits filed by young girls in Florida;

• He (Epstein) had done nothing wrong;

• He (Epstein) had gone to jail in Florida for soliciting prostitution for no reason;

• If the same thing (i.e., sexual abuse of minor girls) had happened in New York, he (Epstein) would have received only a $200 fine;

• J. was the one causing all of Epstein's problems (i.e., the civil suits brought by Jane Doe and other girls);

• L.M. came to him as a prostitute and a drug user (i.e., came to Eta for sex, rather than Epstein pursuing her);

• All the girls suing him are only tying to get a meal ticket;

• The only thing he might have done wrong was to may e cross the line a little too closely;

• He (Epstein) was very upset that hd'su, aed Ghisline Maxwell, that she was a good person that did nothing Totiei. , ad done nothing wrong even though she helped procure young girls o . t st,Epstein's sexual desires);

• With regard to Jane Doe 102 v. lip *n;which involved an allegation that Epstein had repeatedly sexually abus -old girl, forced her to have sex with his friends, and flew her on pnv plane nationally and internationally for the purposes of sexually _and abusing her, he (Epstein) flippantly said that the case was dismiss, ting that the allegations were ridiculous and untrue.

See Affidavit of Michae attached hereto as Exhibit "QQ."¶

81. The Rush riew also demonstrated perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein. Epstein abo not knowing Rush. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, taken • v. Jeffrey Epstein, case 50-2008-CA-028051, page 154, line 4 through 155 line 9, 'lion attachment #7), wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not recognize Rush from the New York Daily News. This impression was given despite the fact that he gave a lengthy personal interview about details of the case that was tape recorded with Rush.

Epstein's Harassment of Witnesses Against Him¶

82. At all relevant times has a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein engaged in threatening witnesses. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A" at p. 82, U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C" - Indictments drafted by Federal Government against Epstein; and Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11.

83. Despite three no contact orders entered against Epstein (see C, supra), learned that Epstein continued to harass his victims. For exam 'oe had a trial set for her civil case against him on July 19, 2010. As that trial d e a roached, defendant Epstein intimidated her in violation of the judicial no-contact < On July 1, 2010, he had a "private investigator" tail Jane Doe — following her stopping when she stopped, driving when she drove, refusing to pass when sh o er. When Jane Doe ultimately drove to her home, the "private investigator" then Doe house and flashed his high b threateningly, at about 10:30 p. ane Doe fled her home in the company of a retired police officer employed Jane s counsel, the "private investigator" attempted to follow Jane Doe despite a uest of to do so. The retired officer successfully took evasive action and placed Jane D a' a cure, undisclosed location that night. Other harassing actions against Jane Doe a a ed his car approximately 25 feet from Jane intermittently into the home. Even more See Motion for Contempt filed by in Jane Doe v. Epstein detailing th event, including Fisten Affidavit attached to Motion, Composite Exhibit "RR."

Epstein Settlement of Civil Claims Against Him for Sexual Abuse of Children¶

84. The civil cases filed against Epstein on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were reasonably perceived by to be very strong cases. Because Epstein had sexually assaulted these girls, he had committed several serious torts against them and would be liable to them for appropriate damages. See Preceding Undisputed Facts. Because of the outrageousness of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, reasonably expected that Epstein would also be liable for punitive damages to the girls. Because could show that Epstein had molested children for years and designed a complex premeditated scheme So procure different minors everyday to satisfy his addiction to sex with minors, the ve damages would have to be sufficient to deter him from this illegal conduct that he ged in daily for years. Epstein was and is a billionaire. See Complaint, ¶49 g to "Palm Beach Billionaire"); see also Epstein Deposition, February 1 01 i at 172-176 (Deposition Attachment #7) (taking the Fifth when asked whether h iiis' , onaire). Accordingly, reasonably believed the punitive damages that w *e fo be awarded against Epstein would have been substantial enough to punish him v ly Enough for his past conduct as well as deter him from repeating his offenses in th Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶19.

85. On July 6, 2010, face trial for the civil suits that had been filed against him by L.M., E.W., and J e Doe, efendant Epstein settled the cases against him. The terms of the settlement are c dent* The settlement amounts are highly probative in the instant action as Epstein basteN ' cl s that was involved in the Ponzi scheme on Epstein's inability to settle he tr;)E.W., and Jane Doe cases for "minimal value". His continued inability to settle the c ims for "minimal value" after the Ponzi scheme was uncovered would be highly probative in discrediting any causal relationship between the Ponzi scheme and settlement negotiations. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶21.

Non-Involvement in Fraud by Scott Rothstein¶

86. From in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein appears to have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A. ("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement agreements had been reached with putative defendants based upon claims of sexual harassment and/or whistle-blower actions. Rothstein falsely informed the investors that potential settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, Un' tares v. Scott W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-COIN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attach h ibit "SS."

87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Roth n sed to lure investors into his Ponzi scheme were the cases against Epstein tha ng handled by J. Esq. had no knowledge of the frau ch use of the Epstein cases. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶9.

88. J. Esq., 4in about April 2009 and left RRA in November 2009 — a period of less o ar. would not have joined RRA had be been aware that Scott Rothste mg a giant Ponzi scheme at the firm. left RRA shortly after learnin ofRothstein's fraudulent scheme. Id. at ¶8.

89. At n 'me p " r to the public disclosure of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme did know or hay n RS believe that Rothstein was using legitimate claims that was prosec t\ a t Epstein for any fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate purpose. Id. at ¶20.

90. never substantively discussed the merits of any of his three cases against Epstein with Rothstein. See Deposition of J. taken March 23, 2010, at 110-16. (hereinafter a Depo") (Deposition Attachment #22).

91. On July 20, 2010, received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed of his rights as a victim of Rothstein's fraud and promised to keep informed about subsequent developments in Rothstein's prosecution. See Letter attached to as Exhibit

92. Jeffrey Epstein filed a complaint with the Florida B Esq., raising allegations that and others were the wrongdoing of Scott Rothstein. After investigating the claim, the Florida B atic 1 ed this complaint. See Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶23.

Epstein Takes the Fifth When Asked Subst 4tions About His Claims Against¶

93. On March 17, 2010, f Epstein was deposed about his lawsuit against . Rather than answ subs ve questions about his lawsuit, Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth Arne dment privilege. See Epstein Depo. taken 3/17/10, Deposition Attachment #1.

94. 's eposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Speci Id. at 34. are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. ginned up?"

at 37. 95. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than name people in California that had tried to depose to increase the settlement value of the civil suit he was handling. Id.¶

96. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you know former President Clinton personally." Id.

97. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Are you now telling us that there were claims against you that were fabricated by Mr. IM?" Id. at 39.

98. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the t stio , , "Well, which of Mr. IIIMI' cases do you contend were fabricated." Id. 0

99. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than a er e question: "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against y Id. at 45.

100. In his deposition, Epstein took the F t. answer a question about the actual value of the claim of L.M. and Jane Doe a m Id.

101. In his deposition, taken prior o setFlement of s clients claims against Epstein, Epstein took the Fifth rath er the question: "Is there any pending claim against you which you contend ?" Id. at 71.

102. In his dep ition, stein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you ever have damagin viden in your garbage?" Id. at 74.

103. osition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did sexual assaults take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?" Id. at 88.

104Y In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Does a flight log kept for a private jet used by you contain the names of celebrities, dignitaries or international figures?" Id. at 89.¶

105. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 89.

106. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of females under the age o 8." Id. at 90.

107. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than an uestion: "Have you ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females und ge of 187" Id. at 91- 92.

108. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth answer the question: "Did you ever socialize with David Copperfield in the pre c f females under the age of 18?" Id. at

109. In his deposition, Epstein tot F rather than answer the question: "Have you ever socialized with Mr. ovemor of New Mexico and formerly U.S. ) Representative and Ambassador/it thet3fitted Nations] in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id. at 94.

110. In h eposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever s b children?" Id. at 95. 0

11.exu S deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you have staff Members that assisted you in scheduling appointments with underage females; that is, females under the age of 18." Id. at 97-98.¶

112. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "On how many occasions did you solicit prostitution." Id. at 102.

113. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How many minors have you procured for prostitution?" Id. at 104.

114. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you ever coerced, induced or enticed any minor to engage in any sexual act with you?" Id. at 107.

115. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer th non: "How many times have you engaged in fondling underage females?" Id. at 10

116. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than the question: "How many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under f 18?" Id. at 110.

117. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth answer the question: "Do you have a personal sexual preference for children?" {1(t . 11- , 2.

118. In his deposition, Epstein t Fifih rather than answer the question: "Your and the litigation team took an emotionally driven set of facts involving all ed in7tyCent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach billionaire, and sought t turn it into a goldmine,' end of quote. Who is the Palm Beach billionaire referred in tha entence?" Id. at 112-13. (ct Complaint at page 27, paragraph 49,

ro 119. . d sition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Who are the peo a authorized to make payment [to your lawyers] on your behalf?" Id. at 120.¶

120 In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?" Id. at 128.¶

served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November, 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been 4"1¶

By:¶

Jack Scarola Seamy, Denney, Scarola, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach, FL 33,0,2.2 (561) 686- '0 (561 •84-581 OLA o.: 169440¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

SERVICE LIST¶

E. Knight, Esq. L. Ackerman, Esq. BURNETT P.A. 901 Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger et al. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

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

Gary M. Jr. Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, P. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suit 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330¶

ricS¶

%b..)¶

EXHIBIT NON¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

AFFIDAVIT OF [REDACTED] JAMES EDWARDS¶

1. 1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida. I am currently a partner in the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
2. 2. In 2008, I was a sole practitioner running a personal injury law firm in Hollywood, FL. While a sole practitioner I was retained by three clients, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe to pursue civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them while they were minor girls. I agreed to represent these girls, along with attorney Jay Howell (an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I filed state court actions on behalf of L.M. and E.W. and a federal court action on behalf of Jane Doe. All of the cases were filed in the summer of 2008.
3. 3. My clients received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding their rights as victims of Epstein's federal sex offenses. (True and accurate copies of the letters are attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "M")
4. 4. In mid June 2008, I contacted Assistant United States Attorney [REDACTED] Villafaña to inform her that I represented Jane Doe #1(E.W.) and, later, Jane Doe #2(L.M.). I asked to meet to provide information regarding Epstein. AUSA Villafaña did not advise me that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal prosecution. AUSA Villafaña did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested at least 40 underage minor females, including E.W., Jane Doe and L.M.
5. 5. I also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information and evidence that they had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to provide any such information to me. The U.S. Attorney's Office also declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults.
6. 6. I was informed that on Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafaña 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. She called me to provide notice to my clients regarding the hearing. She did not tell me that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement. My clients did not learn and understand this fact until July 11, 2008, when the agreement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the Crime Victims' Rights Act action that I had filed.
7. 7. In the summer of 2008 I filed complaints against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe.
8. 8. In the Spring of 2009 (approximately April), I joined the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). I brought my existing clients with me when I joined RRA, including L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. When I joined the firm, I was not aware that Scott Rothstein was running a Ponzi scheme at RRA. Had I known such a Ponzi scheme was in place, I would never have joined RRA.
9. 9. I am now aware that it has been alleged that Scott Rothstein made fraudulent presentations to investors about the lawsuits that I had filed on behalf of my clients against Epstein and that it has been alleged that these lawsuits were used to fraudulently lure investors into Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. I never met a single investor, had no part in any such presentations and had no knowledge any such fraud was occurring. If these allegations are true, I had no knowledge that any such fraudulent presentations were occurring and no knowledge of any such improper use of the case files.
10. 10. Epstein's Complaint against me alleges that Rothstein made false statements about cases filed against Epstein, i.e., that RRA had 50 anonymous females who had filed suit against Epstein; that Rothstein sold an interest in personal injury lawsuits, reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers, paid clients "up front" money; and that he used the judicial process to further his Ponzi scheme. If Rothstein did any of these things, I had no knowledge of his actions. Because I maintained close contact with my clients, EW, LM and Jane Doe, and Scott Rothstein never met any of them, I know for certain that none of my clients were paid "up front" money by anyone.
11. 11. Epstein alleges that I attempted to take the depositions of his "high profile friends and acquaintances" for no legitimate litigation purpose. This is untrue, as all of my actions in representing L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were aimed at providing them effective representation in their civil suits. With regard to Epstein's friends, through documents and information obtained in discovery and other means of investigation, I learned that Epstein was sexually molesting minor girls on a daily basis and had been for many years. I also learned the unsurprising fact that he was molesting the girls in the privacy of his mansion in West Palm Beach, meaning that locating witnesses to corroborate their testimony would be difficult to find. I also learned, from the course of the litigation, that Epstein and his lawyers were constantly attacking the credibility of the girls, that Epstein's employees were all represented by lawyers who apparently were paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein, that co-conspirators whose representation was also apparently paid for by Epstein were all taking the Fifth (like Epstein) rather than provide information in discovery. For example, I was given reason to believe that [REDACTED], Larry Visoski, Larry [REDACTED], David Rogers, [REDACTED], [REDACTED], Ghislaine Maxwell, Mark Epstein, and Janusz Banasiak all had lawyers paid for by Epstein. Because Epstein and the co-conspirators in his child molestation criminal enterprise blocked normal discovery avenues, I needed to search for other ordinary approaches to strengthen the cases of my clients. Consistent with my training and experience, these other ordinary approaches included finding other witnesses who could corroborate allegations of sexual abuse of my clients or other girls. Some of these witnesses were friends of Epstein. Given his social status, it also turned out that some of his friends were high-profile individuals.

12. In light of information I received suggesting that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, former girlfriend and long-time friend of Epstein's, was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies I had her served for deposition for August 17, 2009. (Deposition Notice attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit BB). Maxwell was represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of [REDACTED] and Gresser, and I understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was reluctant to give her deposition, and I tried to work with her attorney to take her deposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. Her attorney and I negotiated a confidentiality agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any objections to the deposition. Maxwell, however, still avoided the deposition. On June 29, 2010, one day before I was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney informed me that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently flying to England with no intention of returning and certainly would not return to the United States before the conclusion of Jane Doe's trial period (August 6, 2010). Despite that assertion, I later learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country on approximately July 31, 2010, as she attended the wedding of Chelsea Clinton (former President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for US Weekly magazine.

13. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Donald Trump's deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump was properly noticed because: (a) after review of the message pads confiscated from Epstein's home, the legal and investigative team assisting my clients learned that Trump called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period most relevant to my clients' complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy." "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder who he is. By Landom [REDACTED] Jr.; (c) I learned through a source that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (e) Mark Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein's brother) testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with underage girls) deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009 at 48-50; (f) Trump visited Epstein at his home in Palm Beach - the same home where Epstein abused minor girls daily; (g) Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and houseman. Based on this information, I believed that

Trump might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.¶

14. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Alan Dershowitz's deposition in the civil suits against him. Dershowitz was properly noticed because: (a) Dershowitz has been friends with Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky [REDACTED] on January, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity Fair; (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at Epstein's house during the years most relevant to my clients; (d) Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-427); (e) Dershowitz was reportedly involved in persuading the Palm Beach State Attorney's office not to file felony criminal charges against Epstein because the underage females lacked credibility and thus could not be believed that they were at Epstein's house, despite him being an eyewitness that the underage girls were actually there; (f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" - categories that Dershowitz and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into; (g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on Epstein's plane on several occasions according to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot and information (described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the plane; (h) Epstein donated Harvard $30 Million dollars one year, and Harvard was one of the only institutions that did not return Epstein's donation after he was charged with sex offenses against children. Based on this information, I believed that Dershowitz might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.

15. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Bill Clinton's deposition. Clinton was properly noticed because: (a) it was well known that Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and several witnesses had provided information that Maxwell helped to run Epstein's companies, kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her computer; (b) newspaper articles stated that Clinton had an affair with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was thought to be second in charge of Epstein's child molestation ring. The Cleveland Leader newspaper, April 10, 2009; (c) it was national news when Clinton traveled with Epstein (and Maxwell) aboard Epstein's private plane to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend; (d) the flight logs for the relevant years 2002 - 2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on more than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions; (e) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be sexually

exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" - categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (f) flight logs showed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED], -- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein's that were closely connected to Epstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse; (g) Clinton frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped - raising the suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to Epstein's sexual abuse of children; (h) Epstein's personal phone directory from his computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be Clinton's personal numbers. Based on this information, I believed that Clinton might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.¶

1. 16. Epstein alleges that Tommy Mottola was improperly noticed with a deposition. I did not notice Mattola for deposition. He was noticed for deposition by a law firm representing another one of Epstein's victims - not by me.
2. 17. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take the illusionist David Copperfield's deposition. Copperfield was properly noticed because: (a) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that David Copperfield was a guest on several occasions at Epstein's house; (b) according to the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house, Copperfield called Epstein quite frequently and left messages that indicated they socialized together; (c) Copperfield himself has had similar allegations made against him by women claiming he sexually abused them; (d) one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield had touched her in an improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. Based on this information, I believed that Copperfield might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
3. 18. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I identified Bill [REDACTED] as a possible witness against him in the civil cases. [REDACTED] was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to [REDACTED] joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. See deposition of Larry [REDACTED], October 6, 2009, at 167-169. There was information indicating that Epstein had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls since he had regularly and frequently abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. [REDACTED] had also returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, indicating that he believed that there was something about Epstein that he did not want to be associated with. [REDACTED] was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify.
4. 19. Epstein alleges that discovery of plane and pilot logs was improper during discovery in the civil cases against him. Discovery of these subjects was clearly proper and

necessary because: (a) Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing my clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for punitive damages; (b) Jane Doe also filed and was proceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute which (unlike other state statutes) guaranteed a minimum level of recovery for Jane Doe. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his use of the telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, I anticipated that Epstein would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument. In response, the other attorneys and I representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight logs demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of facilitating his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial, Judge Marra did not rule on the summary judgment motion. (c) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as young as 12 years old and alleged that he used his plane to transport underage females to be sexually abused by him and his friends. The flight logs accordingly might have information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends of Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this information, I believed that the flight logs and related information was relevant information to prove the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly I pursued them in discovery.¶

20. In approximately November 2009, the existence of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme became public knowledge. It was at that time that I, along with many other reputable attorneys at RRA, first became aware of Rothstein criminal scheme. At that time, I left RRA with several other RRA attorneys to form the law firm of [REDACTED] Jaffe Weissing [REDACTED] Fistos and Lehrman ("[REDACTED] Jaffe"). I was thus with RRA for less than one year.

21. In July 2010, along with other attorneys at Farmer Jaffe and Professor Cassell, I reached favorable settlement terms for my three clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe in their lawsuits against Epstein.

22. On July 20, 2010, I received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida - the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that I was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed me of my rights as a victim of Rothstein's federal crimes and promised to keep me informed about

subsequent developments in his prosecution. A copy of this letter is attached to this Affidavit. (A copy of the letter is attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit UU)¶

1. 23. Jeffrey Epstein also filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against me. His complaint alleged that I had been involved in Rothstein's scheme and had thereby violated various rules of professional responsibility. The Florida Bar investigated and dismissed the complaint.
2. 24. I have reviewed the Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contemporaneously with this Affidavit. Each of the assertions concerning what I learned, what I did, and the good faith beliefs formed by me in the course of my prosecutions of claims against Jeffrey Epstein as contained in the Statement of Undisputed Facts is true, and the foundations set out as support for my beliefs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
3. 25. All actions taken by me in the course of my prosecution of claims against Jeffrey Epstein were based upon a good faith belief that they were reasonable, necessary, and ethically proper to fulfill my obligation to realously represent the interests of my clients.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.¶

Dated: 9/21, 2010¶

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¶

¶

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 <M. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable information. See Stateme,nk f Uridisputed Facts.
• With regard to fo ent Bill Clinton, had sound legal basis for believing former-Prestd Clinton had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement otUndie used Facts.
• With rega ormer Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, was not the mom th t noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed F regard to illusionist David Copperfield, had sound legal basis for ± ving Mr. Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
  • With regard to former New Mexico Governor Bill had sound legal basis for naming Former New Mexico Governor Bill = on his witness list. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.

It is worth noting that the standard for discovery is a very liberal one. To notice someone for a deposition, of course, it is not required that the person deposed actually end up producing¶

admissible evidence. Otherwise, every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead to an "abuse of process" claim. Moreover, the rules of discovery themselves provide that a deposition need only be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fla. R. Civ. P. I.280(b) (emphasis added).¶

Moreover, the discovery that pursued has to be considered against backdrop of Epstein's obstructionist tactics. As the Court is aware, in both this case 1 o er cases filed against him, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege answer any substantive questions. Epstein has also helped secure attorneys for othe household staff who assisted in the process of recruiting the minor girls, wh' also asserted their Fifth Amendment rights rather than explain what happened \ e dojo ed doors in Epstein's mansion k rs in West Palm Beach. See Statement of Undi F . It is against this backdrop that followed up on one of the only re g es of inquiry open to him: discovery aimed at Epstein's friends who might have position to corroborate the fact that Epstein was sexually abusing young girls.¶

In the context of the s ssault cases that had filed against Epstein, any act of sexual abuse ha' and-fat e relevance to the case — even acts of abuse Epstein committed against minor Is r than L.M., E.W., or Jane Doe. Both federal and state evidence rules make ac abuse against other girls admissible in the plaintiff's case in chief as proof of "modus o di" or "motive" or "common scheme or plan." See Fed. R. Evid. 415 (evidence of other acts of sexual abuse automatically admissible in a civil case); Fla. Stat. Ann. 90.404(b) (evidence of common scheme admissible); v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (other acts of potential sexual misconduct admissible).¶

A second reason exists for making discovery of Epstein's acts of abuse of other minor girls admissible. Juries considering punitive damages issues are plainly entitled to consider "the existence and frequency of similar past conduct." TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n.28 (1993). This is because the Supreme Court recognizes "that a recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender . . . [because] repeated sconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance." BMW of Am ica, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 577 (1996) (supporting citations omitted). In addi s can consider other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calculation in g punitive damages, because "evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged ' ited conduct while knowing . . . that it was unlawful would provide relevant suppo an gument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant's disrespect for ." d. at 576-77. In the cases filed against Epstein, his clients were en to ttempt to prove that Epstein "repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct" — use be was a predatory pedophile, he sexually assaulted dozens and dozens o s. The discovery of Epstein's friends who might have had direct or circumstantial e e of other acts of sexual assault was accordingly entirely proper. the entitled summary judgment to the extent his claim is based on efforts by btain discovery of Epstein's friends.¶

EPSTED1 S LAWSUIT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF HIS REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN REASONABLE DISCOVERY.¶

As is readily apparent from the facts of this case, Epstein has filed a lawsuit but then refused to allow any real discovery about the merits of his case. Instead, when asked hard questions about whether he has any legitimate claim at all, Epstein has hidden behind the Fifth¶

Amendment. As a result, under the "sword and shield doctrine" widely recognized in Florida caselaw, his suit must be dismissed.¶

"[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit." Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. .I.A., 22 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2009) J., concurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek aff ative relief in a civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving dis, u g the fifth amendment as both a 'sword and a shield."' DePalma v. DePalma, 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance C 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1983)). Put another way, "[a] civil litigant's fi incrimination may be used as a shield but not a sword. s that a plaintiff seeking dment right to avoid selfaffirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke endment and refuse to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, thereby m e defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York, Inc. v. Euroclas Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3n1 Dist. Court App. 1983).¶

Here, Epstein is trying t recisely what the "well settled" law forbids. Specifically, he is trying to ob "aff a ve relief' — i.e., forcing simultaneous) allegatio statement a,f undisputed facts, Epstein has refused to answer such basic questions about his lawsuit as: to pay money damages — while from obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the the basis for the relief Epstein is seeking. As recounted more fully in the¶

• "Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?"

• "Well, which of Mr. ME' cases do you contend were fabricated?"

• "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008.which you contend to be false?"

• "I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?"

• "Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?"

• "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against

The matters addressed in these questions are the central focus of E pctet) h • ' aims against . Epstein's refusal to answer these and literally every other st89tde question put to him in discovery has deprived of even a basic underst goo e evidence alleged to support claims against him. Moreover, by not offeri lanation of his allegations, Epstein is depriving of any opportu duct third party discovery and 4 opportunity to challenge Epstein's allegations,fr¶

7\.,¶

It is the clear law that "the chi *- rpose of our discovery rules is to assist the truthfinding function of our justice sys avoid trial by surprise or ambush," Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138 (Fla.2006), and fair discovery is essential to these important goals," McFadden v. State, 15 So, 757 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2009). Accordingly, it is important for the Court to iu a "not only compliance with the technical provisions of the discovery rules, but also a o the purpose and spirit of those rules in both the criminal and civil context." McFa So.3d at 757. Epstein has repeatedly blocked "full and fair discovery," requiring dismissal of his claim against¶

IV. IS ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM EPSTEIN'S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN'S CLAIM.¶

is entitled to summary judgment on the claim against him for a second and entirely independent reason: Epstein's repeated invocations of the Fifth Amen ent raise adverse inferences against him that leave no possibility that a reasonable fac cou reach a verdict in his favor. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, th- ust fulfill a "gatekeeping function" and should ask whether "a reasonable trier o act ould possibly" reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Willingham v. City of Orla So.2d 43, 48 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). Given all of the that are to be drawn against Epstein, no reasonable finder of fact could con at .pstein was somehow the victim of improper civil lawsuits filed against him. sonable finder of fact could only find that Epstein was a serial molester of chi was being held accountable through legitimate suits brought by and oyaers b alf of the minor girls that Epstein victimized.¶

"[I]t is well-settled that %e, Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil acti ns w ey refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 12 la. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party ma t 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. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, "'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d¶

In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most persuasive character" from Epstein's repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to hint To provide but a few examples, here are questions that Epstein refused to answer and the Attic' reasonable inference that a reasonable finder of fact would draw:¶

• Question not answered: "Specifically what are the allegatio you contend Mr. ginned up?" Reasonable infe against Epstein were ginned up.
• Question not answered: "Well, which of Mr. a' cases do ou contend were fabricated?" Reasonable inference: No casned by against Epstein were fabricated. ryou which allegations
• Question not answered: "Did sexu i @lts l ver take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?" , ble inference: Epstein was on a private airplane while sexual assaults talcing place.
• Question not answered: y minors have you procured for prostitution?" Reasonable inference. n as procured multiple minors for prostitution.
• Question not answered:, "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in Septehiber of 2008 which you contend to be false?" Reasonable inference: Nothing in L.M.'s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false i.e., axallegedOn L.M.'s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while sbe was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and e ages as a result. estion not answered: "I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?" Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as alleged in her federal complaint.
• Question not answered: "Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?" Reasonable inference: Epstein bad physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in her complaint.
• Question not answered: "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of

E.W. against you has?" Reasonable inference: E.W.'s claim against Epstein had substantial actual value.¶

Without repeating each and every invocation of the Fifth Amendment that Epstein has made and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those invocations of privilege, the big picture is unmistakably clear: No reasonable finder of fact could rule in Epstein's favor on his claims against . Accordingly, is entitled to summary judgment lzti a on the Fifth Amendment inferences that the jury would draw.¶

his privilege The inferences against Epstein are not limited to those assertions. Epstein's guilt is also reasonably inferred from his haraStrit of, intimidation of, efforts to exercise control over, and limitation of access t who might testify against him.¶

Epstein's efforts to intimidate his victi 4ispl; , rt the inference that Epstein knew that they were going to provide compelling/ tim y against him. The evidence that Epstein tampered with witnesses (later de e his accomplices and co-conspirators) will be admissible to demonstrate his cduscionsness of guilt. "[lit is precisely because of the egregious nature of such conduct than w expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a party's efforts to ilk 'date itnesses . . ." Jost v. Ahmad, 730 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2nd Dist. Ct. App. 19 8 al quotation omitted). To be clear, Epstein's attempt to tamper with witnesses t simply admissible as impeachment evidence of the tampering party's credibility. The opposing party is entitled to introduce facts regarding efforts to intimidate a witness as substantive evidence." Id. at 711 (emphasis in original) (internal citation omitted). This substantive evidence of Epstein's witness intimidation provides yet another reason why no reasonable jury could find in favor of his claims against¶

V. IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PRIVILEGE¶

Absolute immunity must be afforded any act occurring during course of judicial proceeding, regardless of whether act involves defamatory statement or other tortious behavior, such as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding. See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie,M, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made di il the course of a judicial proceeding extends not only to the parties in a proceeding b, witnesses, and counsel as well. Id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of ac hether for commonlaw torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, g a & Frappier v.., 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory stateme <' is AStc y lawyer while interviewing a witness in preparation for and connected to ( s Ailitic r)'n litigation are covered by the absolute immunity conferred by the litigation priv. . Se elMonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2010), review o. 3d 1287 (Fla. 2010). The privilege extends to statements in judicial proceedings orpose "necessarily preliminary thereto. See Stewart v. Sun Sentinel Co., 695 So.2d 36171a. 4th DCA 1997)(an attorney's delivery of a copy of a notice of claim to a reporter absolute i rV ,.. ,. .ch notice was a required filing prior to instituting suit, was protected by¶

CONCLUSION¶

For all the foregoing reasons, defendant, the Court should grant defendant J. , Esq., summary judgment in his favor on the only remaining claim filed against him by plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein, and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November, 2011 a copy of the foregoing has been served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list.¶

Jack Scarola¶

Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Bar ipley¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33409¶

By:¶

JAC A¶

Fl at lo.: 169440¶

SERVICE LIST¶

E. Knight, Esq. L. Ackerman, Esq. BURNETT P.A. 901 Point West 777 South Hagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger et al. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

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

Gary M. , Jr: Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 ( 14/ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 %)¶

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, J. , individually, and L.M., individually,¶

Defendant(s).¶

r O SA¶

)¶

-COUNTER-PLAINTIFF, ' SECOND RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES¶

Counter-plaintiff, J. oyes this Honorable Court for entry of an Order granting him leave to assert a cl .punitive damages against the Counter-defendant, . . . :JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and in su f would show that the evidence summarized herein satisfies the statutory prerequisi r the assertion of a punitive damage claim. Specifically, the evidence establishes that ET IN's Complaint against , ,¶

• 1. d,>in the total absence of evidence to support any allegation of wrongdoing, e part of,
• 2. was filed in the total absence of evidence that EPSTEIN had sustained damage as a consequence of any misconduct other than his own well-established criminal enterprise;
• 3. was filed in the absence of any intention to meet his own obligation to provide relevant and material discovery;

¶

4. was filed for the sole purpose of attempting to intimidate both EPSTEIN. and clients and others into abandoning their legitimate claims against

APPLICABLE LAW¶

To plead a claim for punitive damages, the claimant must show a' le basis" for the recovery of such damages. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(f); see also Glo caper Co. v.., 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995). The showing required to amen • mi I. As stated in State of Wis. Inv. v. Plantation Square Assoc., 761 F. Supp. 156 D. Fla: 1991):¶

[T] he court believes-it iriusi Ultimately be -azle'ss t lard than that required for summary judgment. Though the burden js Okfthe laintiff] to survive a §768.72 challenge of insufficiency, see Will le *Eris Engineering Consultants, 554 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 3'd DCA 19895the Standard of proof required to assert Plaintiff's punitive claim must be-lower he that needed to survive a summary adjudication on its merits. As the F*Irida courts have noted, a §768.72 challenge more closely resembles OnOtion'to dismiss that additionally requires an evidentiary proffer and pfaees *burden of persuasion on the plaintiff. Id. In considering a motion to dIsmiss, factual adjudication is inappropriate as all facts asserted—or here, reasonabliestablished—by the plaintiff are to be taken as true. Conley v. =, 35,5,14.-S. 41, at 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, at 101-102, 2 L.Ed. 2d 80, 1581 at 84. As suclir the court has given recognition only to those assertions of the defendants;rhich would show Plaintiff's factual bases to be patently false or irrelev '.d as paid no heed whatsoever to the defendants' alternative evid .ffers.¶

State of Wis. Inv., 761 F. Supp. At 1580; see also Dolphin Cove Assn. v. Square D. Co., 616 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ("Prejudging the evidence is not a proper vehicle for the court's denial of the motion to amend" to assert punitive damages claim).¶

Section 768.72 provides for the amendment of a complaint either through evidence in the record or "proffered by the claimant." As the statute suggests, a proffer of evidence in support of a punitive damage claim is sufficient and a formal evidentiary hearing is not required. See Strasser v. Yalmanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, o.2d 1372 7 (Fla. 1997); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366, 369, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). II "a hearing is not even required provided the trial court identifies the filings of the p C "e 9qh : i . indicates that its decision to grant the motion is based upon a review of the fi an respective documents filed.¶

• The United States District Court for the Mid the nature of a proffer in support of a motion t of Florida has spoken clearly on assert a claim for punitive damages in¶

Marco Point I Condo. Assin, Inc. 30, 2010). As the Court stated: Corp., 2010 WL 2609367 (M.D. Fla. June¶

It is important to empha9ize, ak the outset, the limited nature of the review a court may undertake in considering the sufficiency of an evidentiary proffer under Fla. Stat. §768.72. Coln" vviewing such proffers have recognized that "a proffer' according toetraditional notions of the term, connotes merely an offer' of evidence arither the term standing alone nor the statute itself calls for an adjudication of The underlying veracity of that which is submitted, much less for countervailing evidentiary submissions." Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, frac."900 So.2d 637, 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quoting State of Wisconsin In-Vestment Board v. Plantation Square Associates, Ltd., 761 F. Supp. 1569, 1581 n. 21 tS.D. Fla. 1991)).¶

Therefore, "an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is offered and scrutinized under the pertinent evidentiary rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated nor mandated by the statute in order to determine whether a reasonable basis has been established to plead punitive damages." Id. (collecting cases).¶

It is thus neither necessary nor appropriate for a court to make evidentiary rulings, weigh rebuttal evidence, or engage in credibility determinations in considering the sufficiency of the proffer.¶

I. INTRODUCTION¶

"...a proffer should be evaluated by standards akin to those governing a motion to dismiss, where the truth of the plaintiff's allegations are assumed, and riot_rte more rigorous summary judgment standard, where the opposing party ffi record c t shatv that there is su cient admissible evidence in the to suppo c5 onable jury finding in his favor." C¶

• 'The pleadings and discovery taken to date as co of all claims brought by him against-Bradley .3: / Epstein's voluntary dismissal show that there is an absence of competent evidence to demonstrate that ated in any fraud against Epstein, show the propriety of every aspect of Mt vol ., ment in the prosecution of legitimate claims against Epstein, and further support <00 for the purpose of intending t&intiptidate usion that Epstein sued out of malice and and clients into abandoning or compromising their legiti Claims against Epstein. Epstein sexually abused three clients of — L.M., ESWltand Jane Doe — and properly and successfully represented them in a civil a r si tstt Epstein. Nothing in capable and competent representation of his clients uld 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" were never supported by probable cause or 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 alleged that Epstein was damaged by, acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where worked for a short period of time). Epstein appe lege that joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault st Epstein to tor victims were told by Rothstein that three minor girls who were sexually assa by't stein: L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were to be paid up-front money to prevent th ir om settling their civil cases - against - Epstein. In Epstein's view, these child u sault—cases • had "minimal value" (Complaint & 42(h)), and refusa 's clients to accept modest settlement offers was claimed to breach some du owed to Epstein. Interestingly, Epstein never states that he actually made ent offers. "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Eps¶

The supposed "proof' e Complaint's allegations against includes alleged contacts t the media, his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile persons with who stein socialized, and use of "ridiculously inflammatory" language in arguments emarkably, Epstein has filed such allegations against despite the fact that in had sexually abused each of IM'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 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 alleged discrepancy between the "minimal value" Epstein ascribed to the claims and the substantial value sought to recover for his clients, the settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agree ay while these claims against were pending will be disclosed to the court i B. Summary of the Argument The claims against J. , Esq., were frig s rat least three separate reasons. First, because Epstein elected to hide b -shield of his right against selfincrimination to preclude his disclosing any v ormation about the criminal activity at the center of his claims, he was barred pro ecuting his case against Under the well-established "sword and shiel e, Epstein could not legitimately seek damages from while at the same ti asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. His case was t re subject to summary judgment and on the eve of the hearing seeking that summ r dgment Epstein effectively conceded that fact by voluntarily dismissing his claims. conduct in the prosecution of valid claims against Epstein was protected by the litigation privilege, a second absolute legal bar to Epstein's claims effectively conceded by his voluntary dismissal. Third, and most fundamentally, Epstein's lawsuit was not only unsupported by both the applicable law, it was based on unsupported factual allegations 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 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 tact successful representation finally forced Epstein to settle and pay appropri es. Effective and proper representation of child victims who have been repeatedl se I assaulted cannot form the basis of a separate, "satellite" lawsuit, and therefore is entitled to summary judgment on these grounds as well. - •¶

-The truth is the record is entirely devoid of y 'Sir e ' ce to support Epstein's claims and is completely and consistently corroborative sworn assertion of innocence. Put simply, Epstein made allegations that no sis in fact. To the contrary, his lawsuit was merely a desperate measure by pedophile to prevent being held accountable for repeatedly sexually abusing min ales. Epstein's ulterior motives in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit are blatantly o . Epstein's behavior is another clear demonstration that he feels he lives above the d that because of his wealth he can manipulate the system and pay for lawyers to d d, work - even to the extent of having them assert baseless claims against other mem of the Florida Bar. Every one of Epstein's Complaints against was nothing short of a far-fetched fictional fairy-tale with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support his 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 Epstein's life as a serial child molester.¶

ARGUMENT¶

II. THE RECORD AND PROFFERED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES 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 y enter summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions and factual showin ve at there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving- party is entitle '? ent as-a- matter of law. See¶

IM••v.- Clieezem Development Corp., 373-So. 2d i7 S• bN, la. 2d DCA 1979); Rule.:1.510(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. Once the moving party concl s s, lishes that the nonmoving party cannot prevail, it is incumbent on the nonmo v< ' ......, p to submit evidence to rebut the motion for summary judgment. See Holl v. -7' ,-1 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert at issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. 370 So.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same).¶

Moreover, well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary judgment in U ported by appropriate proof may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions found in th leadings to create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See 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 1 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. Faced with these well-established legal principles, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his clai the eve of the hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. on¶

B. Epstein's Claim Regarding Had Absolutelvilo actual Basis.¶

This was not a complicated case for granting sultArylaclgrThent. To the contrary, the —.uncontested record clearly established that each one of -Epstein's claims against lacked any merit whatsoever.'¶

• 1. Epstein's allegations regarding ' involvement in Rothstein's "Ponzi Scheme" were unsupported and unsupportable because was simply not involved in any such scheme.

a. Hathisitivolvement in the Ponzi Scheme.¶

The bulk of Epste s against hinged on the premise that was involved in a Po e run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part of attered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations provided ubstance as to how actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he "knew or should have known" of its existence are based upon an impermissible pyramiding of inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason:¶

I The dismissal of Epstein's claims against did not affect Epstein's claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein had already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the only other defendant named in the suit.¶

adv. Epstein Case No.: S02009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages¶

was simply not involved in any 1301121 scheme. He has provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in support of that assertion (attached), and there is not (and could never be) any contrary evidence.¶

talk was deposed at length in this case. As his deposition makes crys ar, he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein may havp.be nvolved. See, e.g., Depo. at 301-02 (Q: " . . . [W]ere you aware that Scott market Epstein cases .. . ?" A: "No."). ein was trying to¶

supplemented his deposition answers A uncertain terms his lack-of involvement in any trated by Rothstein. See, e.g.,- davit that declares in no-,¶

Affidavit attached to Statement of (U S 1 iIS, aterial Facts as Exhibit "N" at 18-10, ¶20, 122-23. Rothstein has also given s t t mony (attached) in which he has clearly and -unequivocally sworn that M rr) 11Cto utely no knowledge of or participation in the Ponzi scheme. Indeed, no reasonable could fmd that was involved in the scheme, as joined RRA well Rothstein began his fraud and would have been already deeply in debt. In fact, the were entire ..... . ce of Epstein's crimes is now clear, and actions in this case ng with his obligation to provide the highest possible quality of legal representati n for his clients to obtain the best result possible.¶

In view of this clear evidence rebutting all allegations against Epstein was obliged to "produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact." See Bryant v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Ha. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985) in order to avoid summary judgment. Epstein could not and did not even attempt to do this. Indeed, when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence of involvement, Epstein declined to answer, purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds:¶

SI . want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were old purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement? . . . A. I'd like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers ha pored that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in o fleece unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect to my personal e, I'm unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to at some ipain -be g able to disclose it, today I'm going to have to assert the attorney/cliertlege.¶

See Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010 (here 'Epstein Depo.") at 67-68. Therefore summary judgment would clearly have bss,n for on all claims c... . involving any Ponzi scheme by Rothstein had th \ I no been mooted by Epstein's dismissal of his claims.¶

( S"¶

b. Epstein's Allegations egligence by Were Unfounded and Not Actionable in Any Event.¶

In his Second A end Complaint Epstein recognized at least the possibility that was not ved in any Rothstein Ponzi scheme. Therefore, seemingly as a fallback, Epstein alle: t explanation that "should have known" about the existence of this conce 'onzi scheme. Among other problems, this fallback negligence position suffers the fatal flaw that it does not link at all to the intentional tort of abuse of process alleged in the complaint.¶

Epstein's negligence claim was also deficient because it simply fails to satisfy the requirements for a negligence cause of action:¶

"Four elements are necessary to sustain a negligence claim: 1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. 2. A failure on the [defendant's] part to conform to the standard required: a breach of the duty . . . . 3. A reasonably close causal connection between he conduct and the resulting injury. This is what is commonly known as A egal cause,' or proximate cause,' and which includes the notion of cause in 4. Actual loss or damage.¶

Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, So.2d, 2010 WL 2400384 at . 010). Epstein did not allege a particular duty on the part of that has been d. Nor could Epstein explain how any breach of the duty might have proxinp ty used him actual damages.¶

Summary judgment was therefore appropriate forth well.¶

• • • Finally, for the sake of completeness, it 4s .,rth noting briefly that no reasonable jury could find to have been negligent fn 3i• in to anticipate that a managing partner at his law firm would be involved in an ed Ponzi scheme. Scott Rothstein deceived not only but also more er reputable lawyers at a major law Minn including multiple respected forme rt*udges. p, WLNR 25074193 iSli,("S e, some outlandish John Grisham murder plot[s] sound far-fetched. But if you ask a w months ago if Scott Rothstein was fabricating federal court orders and forging k ik's signature on documents to allegedly fleece his friends, as federal prosecutors allege, I would have said that was far-fetched, too."). No reasonable lawyer could have expected that a fellow member of the bar would have been involved in such a plot. Nobody seemed to know of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, not even his best friends, or the people he did business with on a daily basis, or even his wife. Many of the attorneys at RRA had been there for years and Cf . Sun Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Dec. 11, 2009, 2009

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages¶

knew nothing. was a lawyer at RRA for less than 8 months and had very few personal encounters with Rothstein during his time at the firm, yet Epstein claims that he should have known of Rothstein's intricate Ponzi scheme. No doubt for this reason the U.S. Attorney's Office has now listed as a "victim" of Rothstein's crimes. See Statemenl Jndisputed Facts filed contemporaneously.¶

uld conclude that Epstein's Complaint does not offer any specific reason why was negligent, and he chose not to offer any explanats f It claim at his deposition.¶

Accordingly, was entitled to summary judgmen nt the claim against him was somehow dependent upon his negligence in failing Rothstein's,Ponzi scheme.¶

"k. 2. Was Entitled to Sitnama Judgment to the Extent the Claim Against Him Was Dependent on Allegations Regarding "Pumping the Cases" Because He Was Properly Pursuing the Interests of His Three Clients Who Had Been Sexually used*y Epstein.¶

Epstein alleges that s ehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil cases he had filed against stein.m represented three young women — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — by fil" ivil 'ts against Epstein for his sexual abuse of them while they were minors. Epste o ed to fmd a cause of action for this by alleging that somehow was inv pumping' these three cases to investors."¶

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 and was entirely ignorant of the existence of any such scheme. for example, could not have possibly "pumped" the cases to investors when he never knew there were any investors and he never participated in any communication with investors.¶

Epstein's "pumping" claims, however, fail for an even more basic reason: was entitled — indeed ethically obligated as an attorney — to secure the maximum ra issaaers,ry for his clients during the course of his legal representation. As is well known 41 advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the ad m." Ha. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Preamble. therefore was requi o sue (unless otherwise instructed by his clients) a maximum recovery against s . , therefore, cannot be liable for doing something that his ethical duties as aCtASse required?¶

Another reason that Epstein's claimsllfaat fails is that filed all three cases Ict st ea year before he was hired by RRA or even knew was "pumping" cases for investors of Scott Rothstein. Epstein m 1 ations that the complaints contained sensational allegations for the purposes of n investors; however, language in the complaints remained virtually unchanged from t filing in 2008 and from the overwhelming evidence the Court can see for itself th t of the facts alleged by in the complaints were true.¶

Eps 'tely paid to settle all three of the cases filed against him for more money than paid to settle any of the other claims against him. At Epstein's request, the terms 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.¶

² In a further effort to harass In, Epstein also filed a bar complaint with the Florida Bar against Florida Bar has dismissed that complaint. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. The¶

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 Conference, or in the Alternative, Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation, Doe v. Epstein, No. 944117 6cCV-80893 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2010) (Marra, J.) (doc. #168) attached hereto as E ' t A". Notably, Epstein sought this settlement conference — and ultimately made his as a result of that conference - in July 2010, more than seven months after he fi. suit against¶

Accordingly, Epstein could not have been the victim-of him, because he never paid to settle the cases unti to "pump",the cases against the Ponzi scheme had been fully disclosed, and well after had left ad severed all connection with Scott Rothstein (December 2009). t c) ===,-¶

In addition, if Epstein had tbol lit 9 t there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his re d as to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who wa t?tin'ding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein simply chose to s at case. He was therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata from somehow what happened in (for example) the Jane Doe case. "The doctrine of res judicata m e a judgment on the merits conclusive `not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action." AlfrIEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept of Transp., So.2d, 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fla. l" s Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kimbrell 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 Pursuit of the Legitimate Interests of his Clients. Aiftece¶

Epstein's Second Amended Complaint raised several claims of "a -Rpr ocess." An abuse of process claim requires proof of three elements: "(1) that th t t made an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; (2) that the defendant h. te motives or purposes in exercising such illegal; improper, •or perverted'-use of pr -(3) that, as-a result of such action on -the part of the defendant, the plaintiffs of d ge. "S& I Investments V. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th S pp. 2010) (internal citation omitted). In fact, this Court is very familiar with use bf action, as has correctly stated this cause in his counterclaim -again Epstein could not prove these elements, a fact effectively conceded by his dishIiss J of the abuse of process claim on the eve of the Summary Judgment hearing challen propriety of that claim.¶

The first t of an abuse of process claim is that a defendant made "an illegal, improper, o use of process." On the surface, Epstein's Complaint appeared to contain several al gations of such improper process. On examination, however, each of these allegations amounted to nothing other than a claim that Epstein was unhappy with some discovery proceeding, motion or argument made by This is not the stuff of an abuse of process claim, 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. Pt 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 intikeasonably \ calculated to lead to the successful prosecution of the pending claims againstEpstein as detailed in M' Affidavit.¶

Epstein also fails to meet the second element of an abu rocess claim: that had some sort of ulterior motive: The case law is cle an abuse of process claim a "plaintiff must prove that the process was .used f t ediate purpose-other than that for which it was designed." S&I Investments v. ASsr ea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. ⁴ 1h Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Biondov ers, 05 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4'" Dist. Ct. App. 2002). ec As a consequence, "[w]here the s as used to accomplish the result for which it was intended, regardless of an incider concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose, there is no abuse of process." Id. ( quotation omitted). Here, has fully denied any improper motive, atement of Undisputed Facts, and Epstein has no evidence of any such motivation. Indkc jt is revealing that Epstein chose not to ask even a single question about this subject duAg the deposition of . In addition, all of the actions that Epstein complains about were in fact used for the immediate purpose of furthering the lawsuits filed on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. In other words, these actions all were both intended to accomplish and, in fact, successfully "accomplished the results for which they were intended" -- whether it was securing additional discovery 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, was entitled to summary judgment on any claim that he abused process for this reason as well—an argument which again was effectively conceded by Epstein's voluntary dismissal.¶

• 4. Was Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent Epstein's Claim Was 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 Mit;Girls.

Epstein alleged that improperly pursued di - . friends. Such discovery, Epstein claims, was imp individuals lacked any discoverable information ause m some of Epstein's close knew that these sexual assault cases against Epstein.¶

Here again, was entitled to were reasonably believed to possess 4t I> judgment, as each of the friends of Epstein e information. The undisputed facts show the following with regard to each of e ns raised in Epstein's complaint:¶

• With regar Trump had Fact

• With4egard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), had sound basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable ormation. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. Donald Trump, had sound legal basis for believing Mr. and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed With regard to former President Bill Clinton, had sound legal basis for believing former President Clinton had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.

• With regard to former Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, was not the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.

• With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.

• With regard to former New Mexico Governor Bill a, ad sound legal basis for naming Former New Mexico Governor Bill on his witness list. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.

It is worth noting that the standard for discovery is a very liberal o for a deposition, of course, it is not required that the person depos tice someone end up producing admissible evidence. Otherwise, every deposition that turned c, be a false alarm would lead to an "abuse of process" claim. Moreover, the rules 'sc ry themselves provide that a deposition need only be "reasonably calculated to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) (emphasis added). discovery of admissible evidence."¶

Moreover, the discovery that of Epstein's obstructionist tacticLI ed has to be considered against the backdrop ourt is aware, in both this case and all other cases filed against him, Epstein ass is Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer any substantive questions. E assisted in the asserted th Epstein's m backdrop that also helped secure attorneys for his other household staff who recruiting Epstein's minor victims. Those staff members in turn also endment rights rather than explain what happened behind closed doors in sion in West Palm Beach. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. It is against this followed up on one of the only remaining lines of inquiry open to him: discovery aimed at Epstein's friends who might have been in a position to corroborate the fact that Epstein was sexually abusing young girls.¶

In the context of the sexual assault cases that filed against Epstein, any act of sexual abuse had undeniable relevance to the case — even acts of abuse Epstein committed against minor girls other than L.M., E.W., or Jane Doe. Both federal and state evidence rules make acts of child abuse against other victims admissible in the plaintiffs case it f as proof of "modus operandi" or "motive" or "common scheme or plan." See Fed. C5 . 415 (evidence of other acts of sexual abuse automatically admissible in a civil cas, 1 t. Ann. 90.404(b) (evidence of common scheme admissible); acts of potential sexual misconduct admissible): v. State, 654 (Fla. 1959) (other¶

A second reason existed to support the pro of other minor victims. Juries considerin consider "the existence and frequency. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U recognizes "that a recidivist ma iscovery of Epstein's acts-af abuse damages issues are plainly entitled to liar past conduct." TXO Production Corp. v. 2 n.28 (1993). This is because the Supreme Court unished more severely than a first offender . . . [because] repeated misconduct is mot rehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance." BMW of North America, Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 577 (1996) (supporting citations omitted). In addition, j onsider other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calculation in awarding p tive damages, because "evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing . . . that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law." Id. at 576-77. In the cases filed against Epstein, his clients were entitled to attempt to prove that Epstein "repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct" — i.e., because he was a predatory¶

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages¶

pedophile, he sexually assaulted dozens and dozens of minor girls. The discovery of Epstein's friends who might have had direct or circumstantial evidence of other acts of sexual assault was accordingly entirely proper. was therefore entitled summary judgment to the extent Epstein's claim was based on efforts by to obtain discovery of Epstein's-4rien ds. This contention also went unchallenged when Epstein dismissed his claims against¶

EPSTEIN'S LAWSUIT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF BIS REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN REASONABLE DISCOVERY.¶

/. \A As is readily apparent from the facts of this case, Epstein filed a lawsuit but then refused <, V to allow any real discovery about the merits of his cage: Instead, when asked direct questions \' Y about whether he had any legitimate claim at all,, Fs stun hid behind the Fifth Amendment. As a result, under the "sword and shield doctrin e y recognized in Florida case law, his suit could not have been legitimately pro¶

"[T]he law is well settl that siittiff is not entitled to both his silence and his¶

lawsuit." Boys & Girls CI \ s of rMarion County, Inc. v. IA., 22 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2009) J., c ncurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek affirmative relief in a civil d then invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the fifth ame as both a `sword and a shield.'" DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4111Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4ih Dist. Ct. App. 1983)). Put another way, "[a] civil litigant's fifth amendment right to avoid selfincrimination may be used as a shield but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to comply¶

adv. Epstein Case No.: 5020D9CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages¶

with the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Court App. 1983).¶

Here, Epstein's suit against purported to do precisely what the ' tiled" law forbids. Specifically, he ostensibly sought to obtain "affirmative relie rcing to pay money damages — while simultaneously precluding m obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the allegations that formed is for the relief Epstein claimed to be seeking. As recounted more fully in the star disputed facts,. Epstein refused to answer such basic questions about his la .".¶

• S ically what are the alle 'ons &nst you which you contend Mr. ginned up?"
• "Well, which of Mr.
• "Is there anythin L.lvt's Complaint that was filed against you in September of i:teNc 2 2008 which you c d to be false?" ases do you contend were fabricated?"
• "I would like 9 know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person refe ''' to as lane Doe in that [federal) complaint?" ou ever have any physical contact with E.W.?" at is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?"

The matters addressed in these questions were the central focus of Epstein's claims against . Epstein's refusal to answer these and literally every other substantive question put to him in discovery deprived of even a basic understanding of the evidence alleged to support claims against him. Moreover, by not offering any explanation of his allegations, Epstein deprived of any opportunity to conduct third party discovery and opportunity to challenge Epstein's allegations.¶

It is the clear law that "the chief purpose of our discovery rules is to assist the truthfinding function of our justice system and to avoid trial by surprise or ambush," o v. State, 928 So.2d 1138 (Fla.2006), and "full and fair discovery is essential to t ortant goals," McFadden v. State, 15 So.3d 755, 757 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2009). ccoi fgly, it is important for the Court to insure "not only compliance with the technic mons of the discovery rules, but also adherence to the purpose and spirit of those nil e criminal and civil context."- McFadden, 15 So.3d at 757. Epstein repeatedly c e. II and fair discovery," and clearly - never intended to provide the discovery have been essential to any intended legitimate, good faith prosecution of hi¶

IV. ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT¶

Epstein's re, ocations of the Fifth Amendment raise adverse inferences against him that leave *bility that a reasonable fact finder could ever have reached a verdict in his favor. on a summary judgment motion, the court was obliged to fulfill a "gatekeeping function" and ask whether "a reasonable trier of fact could possibly" reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Willingham v. City of Orlando, 929 So.2d 43, 48 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). Given all of the inferences that are to be drawn against Epstein, no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Epstein was somehow the victim of improper civil lawsuits filed against him. Instead, a reasonable finder of fact could only find that Epstein was a serial molester of children who was being held accountable through legitimate suits brought by and others on behalf of the minor girls that Epstein victimized.¶

"[1}t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inf es against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to prob ' dence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accni:cl quez v. State, 777 0 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule A". cal) th ogical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and,then e consequences by invoicing a er v. Security and Inv. •Cotp.; 615 n the proper circumstances, "'Silence is Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d constitutional•privilege — at least not in a civil. So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4i° Dist. Ct. App. 199 often evidence of the most persuasive c lit ter." 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 19 u ng United Stales ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, ),a¶

In the circumstance his case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most persuasive " from Epstein's repeated refusal to answer questions propounded to him. To pr a few examples, here are questions that Epstein refused to answer and the reasonable t ence that a reasonable finder of fact would draw:¶

• 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.

• Question not answered: "Well, which of Mr. case do ).uc contend were fabricated?" Reasonable inference: No cases filed by a 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 prOstitittion.

• Question not answered: "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint,* was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to befalser Reasonable inference: Nothing in L.M.'s complaint filed in September or2008 was false i.e., as alleged in L.M.'s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor and she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages as a result.

• Question not answered: "I would like to know Whether you ever had any physical contact with the person referred to mane Doe in that [federal] cimifplairit?" Reasonable inference: Epstein had. cpI sipal contact with minor Jane Doe as alleged in her federal complm

• Question not answered: Reasonable inferenc her complaint. ever have any physical contact with E.W.?" had physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in

• Question not ans : "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. againStruhas?" Reasonable inference: E.W.'s claim against Epstein had substantial aMual value.

Without repeating each and every invocation of the Fifth Amendment that Epstein has made and th sable inferences to be drawn from those invocations of privilege, the big picture is istakably clear: No reasonable finder of fact could rule in Epstein's favor on his claims against . Accordingly, was entitled to summary judgment based on the Fifth Amendment inferences that the jury would draw because Epstein has effectively conceded through invocation of the Fifth Amendment and by his later voluntary dismissal that all allegations against him were both reasonably based and true.¶

The inferences against Epstein are not limited to those arising from his privilege assertions. Epstein's guilt is also reasonably inferred from his harassment of, intimidation of, efforts to exercise control over, and limitation of access to witnesses who might testify against him.¶

stein knew that nce that Epstein Epstein's efforts to intimidate his victims support the inference they were going to provide compelling testimony against him. tampered with witnesses (later designated as his accompli d co-conspirators) will be admissible to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt. " sely because of the egregious nature of such conduct that the law expressly pe eMto make adverse inferences from a party's efforts to intimidate witnesses . . . ." ost mad, 730 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2nd Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (internal quotation o o be clear, Epstein's attempt to tamper with witnesses is "not simply admi impeachment evidence of the tampering party's credibility. The opposing party yrltitled to introduce facts regarding efforts to intimidate a witness as substantive evi Id. at 711 (emphasis in original) (internal citation omitted). This substantive e e of Epstein's witness intimidation provides yet another reason why no reasonable jtry\coula find in favor of his claims against¶

1.T WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PRIVILEGE¶

Absolute immunity must be afforded any act occurring during course of judicial proceeding, regardless of whether act involves defamatory statement or other tortious behavior, such as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to¶

proceeding. See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie,=, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding extends not only to the parties in a proceeding but to judges, witnesses, and counsel as well. Id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, wheth commonlaw torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, pier v.., 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by la er i e interviewing a witness in preparation for and connected to pending litigati ce covered by the absolute immunity conferred by-the litigation privilege. SeeDelM v aynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. Dist. - Ct. App. 4th Dist. 201G), review .granted, 47 So. 3 ..2010): The privilege extends to • -: statements in judicial proceedings or those " preliminary thereto. See Stewart v. Sun Sentinel Co., 695 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th D 997 an attorney's delivery of a copy of a notice of claim to a reporter, which notice red filing prior to-instituting suit, was protected by absolute immunity).¶

c The evirrexi* and compellinct'.ni. unrebutted foundation supporting the conclusion that Epstein never had legitimate grounds to sue . Every one of his now dismissed claims was law described herein provide not only a reasonable basis, but a factually baseless and legally barred.¶

CONCLUSION¶

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMRAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages¶

The lack of foundation and legal impediments were so clearly obvious from the time the claims against their propriety. were initiated that there could never have been a good faith belief in¶

Equally obvious from the surrounding circumstances is the improper m litigation. If and his client, L.M. could be intimidated by the nee against the litigation assault of a billionaire opponent, Epstein stood ehind the d themselves of avoiding or at least limiting his extremely embarrassing and enormously co civi lability and protecting himself from further criminal prosecution threatened b prosecution of an action in Federal Court under the Crime Victims' Rights Ac \Th culated effort at extortion is-clearlyt supportive of punitive damage exposure.¶

Motion to (to S \is sert a Claim for Punitive Damages should be - granted.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY th to all Counsel on the attach Itp lt, and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve 2012.¶

Jack Sc Florid No.: 169440 Prim -mail: jsx@searcylaw.com Se ary E-mail(s): mep@searcylaw.com S cy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9451 Attorneys for J.

¶

[REDACTED] adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages¶

COUNSEL LIST¶

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¶

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¶

[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esquire
bje.efile@pathtojustice.com;
staff.efile@pathtojustice.com
[REDACTED]; Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED]; Fistos &
Lehrman, FL
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820
Fax: (954)-524-2822¶

Lilly Ann [REDACTED], Esquire
lsanchez@thelsfirm.com
The L-S Law Firm
1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305)-503-5503
Fax: (305)-503-6801
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Fred Haddad, Esquire
Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com;
haddadfm@aol.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¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire
tonja@tonjahaddad.com;
Debbie@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 FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, J. , individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. Go¶

COMES NOW the Defendant/Countejclainkant, by and through his undersigned counsel, and here`E files the attached transcript of the telephone interview of to sup t4 l.the proffer made in support of Counter-Claimant's Motion for Leave to Amend to five Damages.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY e and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to all Counsel o aftached list on this n day of May 2011.¶

Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 16 440 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 Sine At for Defendant/CounterClaimant

¶

¶

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800,OOOCMBAG Notice of Filing Supplement¶

COUNSEL LIST¶

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¶

Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

L. Ackerman, Jr., Esquire Burnett, P.A. 901 Point West 777 S Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33 01-61 Phone: (561)-802-9044 Fax: (561)-802-997 Attorneys for Jeffre3Epstein¶

Marc S. Nurik marc@nurildaw.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¶

Weinberg, Esquire Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Suffolk, 02116 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

NOTA CERTIFIED COPY¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO FS 766.205(4) and/or WORK PRODUCT¶

TELECON¶

PARTICIPANTS: JACK SCAROLA¶

RE: adv. Epstein 291874¶

DATE: April 07, 2011¶

JS: Virginia, Jack Scarola and Brad¶

BE: Hi Virginia.¶

V: Hi Jack! Hi Brad! How you guys doing?¶

JS: We're doing fine, thank you. I'm softy of the trouble and before we go any further, let me tell you, if I have your nniision, I have started a tape recorder and I want to be able to tape this conversation from the very beginning. Is that alright with you?¶

V: , ) Sure, that's fine, Jack. No problem¶

JS: Ok, good, thank you. I appreciate that. Let me start off by introducing myself. I know that Brad has spoken/to you about me but I am Brad's lawyer, and I assume that you can confirm that ou and I have never had any communication before. Is that right?¶

V:¶

JS: ave, however, gotten some information from Brad about conversations that ',Mem had with him, and that will enable me, hopefully, to make this a little bit more efficient and take up a minimum amount of your time while still getting the information that we think is going to be helpful to us and to any jury that might ultimately have to bear these facts.¶

sAs¶

So, let me begin by asking you first to tell us what your full name is.¶

V: That's my maiden name. My married name is Virginia Louise¶

JS: Could you spell your last name for us? That is your married last name:¶

V:¶

JS: Alright, thank you, and where are you living :right now?¶

V: I live in Australia¶

JS: And how long have you resided in Australia.¶

V: This is my 19th year.¶

:A e¶

N JS: That is where you are right now, correct? We've reached you ' O a for this phone conversation? J¶

V: That is correct, yes.¶

JS: And what time is it in Australia right now? 'S¶

AC) V: I think it's about 9:00 now.¶

JS: Ok. That's 9am, correct? S¶

V: That's correct.¶

JS: Alright. Virginia, the rea.sa, conversation is because it is our understanding that you know a man by the name J ey Epstein, and I want to begin by asking you please to tell us about the circumstances of your first meeting Mr. Epstein.¶

V: Ok. I was introduced to Mr. Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell. I was working at Donald Trump's spa Mar-a-Lago and I was prompted by Ghislaine to come to Jeffrey's mansion in Palm Beach that afternoon after work to make some extra money and to learn about ma.ssage. She met me at the spa, and I was reading a book about anatomy, so I was already interested in massage therapy as it was and not having any of the education or you know anything behind me, I thought this was a great opportunity to work for her and go. go, I went to Jeffrey's mansion about 5 or 6 in the afternoon. My dad drove me there: My dad worked at Mar-a-Lago with me, and he met Ghislaine and she seemed like a nice, proper English lady, and she knows, I mean, you know, one time then _once before I left to travel overseas, she just seemed really nice and like she would like to help me out. So my dad left, and I had no problem getting home that night, one of her drivers would take me back after my trial. So she led me upstairs, and into Jeffrey's bedroom, and past that is Jeffrey's massage room, which has got his steam room and a shower and a massage table, and there is actually an extra room that has, that nobody knows about it, it's kinda like a secret room and it's got a whole bunch of decorative pictures of pornographic literature and sex toys and I can ? what happened in there.¶

JS: When you say that the room was hidden, Virginia, how was the room concealed?¶

V: It wasn't like a door that you would normally go into, like some kind of special opening, you open that and then a little door, so it looks like it's a little closet so-to-speak, but when you walk in there, it's obviously a lot bigger than just a closet. It wasn't too big, but it was bigger, you know. It wasn't a gigantic room, it was just like a small room, which you know, it probably could fit some shoes in there, _it had racks of shoes, boxes, some sweatshirts neatly folded, and the ceiling to the floor was covered in pornographic pictures of the girls that he had met.¶

JS: When you say...¶

V: So anyways, that was getting there, and I was introduced to Jeffrey, he was laying naked on top of the massage table, and obviously for one, I'm a 15 year old girl and seeing him on the table was weird but, also learning about anatomy and massage, I thought this would be part of it. So obviously, I thought it was part of the massage program, so I said ok, this is fine. And, he then instructed me on how to touch the body, Jeffrey's body, how to massage him, and for the first hour, it was actually a real massage, maybe not an hour, maybe like 40 minutes or something, but of something like that _and that's when he turned over on the other side and to expose himself fully. So then Ghislaine told me that she wanted me to undress and began to take off my shirt and skirt, my [REDACTED] uniform from Mar-A-Lago, she also took off her shirt and got undressed, and so I was there with just my undies on, and she was completely bare, and made some kind of little flake about the underwear that I was wearing because it wasn't my normal sexy girl underwear and just like, I don't know, had red hearts on it or something like that; just your normal, you know, real cute underwear. Anyways, so during all of this I'm kind of like what's going on, how do I act, what do I say, I was so afraid of, not afraid or fearful for my life but _unsure of how all this started and wanting to obtain a profession_ I was so afraid thinking about upsetting and disappointing them, I don't know, it's a weird situation by far and I was expected to _Lick his nipples, instructed on how to do so by J.E._ and give him oral sex while he wanted to fondle me, and then at the end, I was told by Ghislaine to get on top and straddle Jeffrey sexually, and when we were done, we went and had a shower in the room and Jeffrey told me to wash him up and down, you know with a bar of soap and make sure he was all cleaned up. And then he took me downstairs and took me to two of the guards and told John to bring me home. John was the [REDACTED] at the time.¶

JS: Let me interrupt you for just a moment there if I could, Virginia. You mentioned as you were recounting those details that you were 15 years old at the time. What is your date of birth?¶

V: August 9^th, 1983¶

JS: And can you tell us please, as best you're able to estimate it, what the date was when this first encounter occurred?¶

V: I've got it written down. It's like - I'm not good with math — hold on — I thought I wrote it down but I didn't. I'm not too sure, I think it was 1998 off the top of my head and around June of 1998, I would say as I was turning 16 at the end of the summer. JS: Alright. You talked about the room where Jeffrey had the pornographic photographs. Did you actually see that room on the occasion of your first visit there? V: No, I got to see that room a few visits after but I was just trying to descri t room to you guys so you knew exactly what room I was talking about. JS: Another question for you, and I don't mean to be prying into yo life, and if I ask you any questions at all that you're uncomfortable answering, then you just tell me that and we'll move on, because I appreciate your cooperation and the last I thing I want to do is impose upon that cooperation, but can you tell us please just generally what kind of sexual experience you had had prior to this confrontgtionyvith Jeffrey? V: Yeah, sure. A close family friend has sexually ,'and I was on the streets at 13 years old. I was picked up by a 67 year old Ron _Eppinger who did exactly what Jeffrey did with me abuse and violate my y ess & I was with him for 6 months. So, he was gone and then I had this boyfriend who was like my school friend from young days but we just kept in'contact with each other and we were on and off constantly, and that was Tony Figeroua_, and there was also another younger guy was near my age, Michael, I can't remember his last name, but yeah, there, I mean, there wasn't like a string of men or anything; but there was Ron, like I told you, and he was the first guy expecting me to do so-called disgusting affairs. Jeffrey actually knew Ron, which was quite weird When I told Jeffrey the story about Ron, and Jeffrey had actually met him, and yeah. Anyway; just another story, and yeah, there were a couple of men, but that gives you an idea. JS: Now when you described the photographs in the room as pornographic, tell me just a little bit sioNk the photographs, if you would please? First, how many of them were theret,Th V: At least 100, and like I said, they covered the room from the ceiling, not the ceiling but from the top of the edge of the wall to the bottom of the floor. I want to say at least a hundred, even more, there could have been more in the boxes _Some of them were A4_ photographs, like the large size, some of naked women posing, you know, positions, sexy positions. Others were, you know, some girls had bikinis on, and it wasn't so pornographic, but it was all women, and it was all in a sexual nature. JS: Were there photographs where more than one person appeared? V: yeah, plenty of them. There were lots of naked photographs, I mean I was just trying to give you a visual range. There was anything from 5x6s to 4x8s to 8x4s. Some of them¶

had frames, some of them were out of frames, but they were all, like I said, they were all women, they were all sexual in nature.¶

JS: Was it your impression that there were a hundred photos of a hundred different people or were there multiple photos of the same woman or girl?¶

V: There was definitely a lot of different girls. I mean it wasn't easy to sit there and say, you weren't finding 5 girls out of some photos, no. Were there a hundred different ones? There could have been pictures of some girls, I really couldn't get close ' ssarily to actually recognize faces or anything like that. But if you, you know, f them were all different, majority of them were different, yeah.¶

JS: Did there ever come a point in time when you became aware otograph of you had been added to the collection?¶

V: Yes, there was. Ghislaine took several nude photo tn,.*.f me for Jeffrey. So, yeah, there were pictures of me and there were picturesehe 't shy, that wasn't the only place in his house that he kept the photos. He likeeph. os all over his house. If you looked in his den or on his desk or in on the IStable, a giant ■ table in his house, there were at least a hundred photos of girls in frames. Not all of them were naked, a lot of the ones that were all around his house were not naked girls posing pornographically, some were pictures of celebrities and politicians he had known_or things like that or had pants on or whatever, but yeah, the e was. lot of mixed photographs in the outside ones.¶

s or young women that you knew or that you u saw in the house? JS: Were there any photographs subsequently came to know¶

V: Yeah eah there was:1 '. There was pictures of Nadia Bjournik, pictures, pictures Emmy, pictures of me, pictures of the regulars, but a lot of the girls, sometimes Jeffrey could have like 7 girls a day, and he would only see those girls once if heot bored. I don't know. These weren't my days. I heard he's gotten a lot sloppier 4rikI left. So, I don't know anyways, but when I knew him, there was just a, it seemed; there Was such an influx of girls coming in and out, so did I recognize a lot of them? Maybe, maybe not, but then they were all definitely beautiful, they were all rapimg in-age, some of them young, some of them older in their 20's, I mean it was just they were all beautiful.¶

JS: You've told us about the first visit. Was there any discussion on the occasion of that first visit about your returning?¶

V: Yes, they were very pleased with me and after the encounter was finished, the sexual encounter, he went and told me I did well and I have a lot of potential to become a massage therapist and if I'd like I could return tomorrow, you know, and do the same thing and get paid $200/hr, so Jeffrey insisted that I come after work, and over the next few days, I guess the relationship grew into more, and within a couple of weeks, not even a couple of weeks, maybe a week, I had quit Mar-a-Lago and I was working for Jeffrey full time.¶

JS: Ok, let's talk about your job at Mar-a-Lago, if we could. You said that your Dad was working there. What was his position at Mar-a-Lago?¶

V: He was a maintenance supervisor I think is what it was called? He like managed the tennis courts and air conditioners and things like that.¶

JS: What is your Dad's full name?¶

V: Sky William¶

V: No, he's not, he's in California.¶

JS: Ok. Is your Dad aware of what is currently go c regard to your having made public statements about your relationship wi¶

V: Yes, he is well aware of it. I told my fanil before all this stuff came out, because they were the first ones contacted by the jbiunalists from Mail on Sunday. I know that they the Mail on Sunday printed that I had gone out and tried to, I mean I think one of the photos said that I was angry that I saw Jeffrey and the Prince walking together and that is why I came out and went publi&with everything. Not true,. I mean, I am angry about how they are still up to their old ways together and that they're still hanging out but I didn't contact the Mail on Sunday and I didn't bring it out I figured that everyone was going to bring it out anyway and I better bring it out the right way. He's known everything from thgtstart, and my family is very supportive with everything going on.¶

And is he still living here in South Florida now?¶

C ,)¶

0¶

IS: I'm kind of oing tdyjump around a little bit and I apologize for that, but since the subject has come u ell me first of all why you are providing this cooperation to us, and I am certaitdrrnfy preciative of it, but I want you to tell us why it is you've chosen to spend time bath us on the telephone and provide this information that you're now providing.¶

V: out to help the bigger picture, you know, I think all of us can make a big difference in a lot of other people's lives and I think that this has gone on long enough and it's a big slap in my face that he can get away with hurting me so bad let alone so many other girls and laugh about it. I guess I talked to you guys out because I want to see the right thing happen, not just to him, but I want people in the world to understand this is not the way of life, you know, it's not acceptable to go out procure young girls and make them think that, this is the way you should be living and that's all. Yeah, I guess my reason for doing it is to help the bigger picture, you know, I'm a big believer in karma and I believe that good things will come back to you, so I guess that's why I'm doing this.¶

JS: Just for the record, neither Brad, nor I, nor anyone representing that they have anything to do with us has made any promises to you. Is that correct?¶

V: That is correct. I'll tell you, since this is our first conversation, that nobody has made me feel like I've been bribed or bought or had to say anything. I've told you anything that I know from my own self, not some things somebody told me. If anything, Brad's been extra careful not to tell me anything and let me do all the talking, so it's quite opposite I think.¶

JS: Alright. Let's get back then to the story of your relationship with Jeffrey, and we've talked about your first encounter with him and how it evolved fro that' into your full time employment with Jeffrey, but what were you doing at Mar- before you quit Mar-a-Lago?¶

V: I was just a locker room attendant and sometimes I did ba ysitting for the rich and famous. So, I wasn't anything big. I worked in the spa area. That's why I was studying anatomy, because I was really really interested in becoming a massage therapist_, and at the locker room, I didn't do much. I mean I was making tea for a living, I would, you know, make sure the toilet paper had a littlyiriangltyin it after everybody went to the toilet, or wipe down the water from the basin, ou know, it was a very easy peasy job.¶

JS: Did you get that job through your Datic¶

V: Yes, my Dad got me the job.¶

JS: Ok, and you were only 1 Mar-a-Lago? at the time, were they aware of how old you were at¶

V: Of course, defmitely. We had to go through extensive, you know, we even had to get drug tested and i and so on and so forth. I mean, Mantas (?) is very strict on employm eah, verybody knew.¶

JS: Ok. ever any conversation with Ghislaine about how old you were before you Jeffrey's mansion?¶

V: No. She didn't ask me how old I was from the start, but when I did get to Jeffrey's mansion, it was discussed how old I was.¶

JS: With whom?¶

V: During the entire hour of what I call the legitimate massage I was giving him, it was cat and mouse games getting information from me to find out who I am, am I a willing participant in these kind of things, and how would I react if they were about to take the next step. But they got information off of me, they got my age, they got my, a little bit of my history so they knew I was, you know, not very stable at home, and they knew that,¶

you know, I was actually interested in making my life better by studying so what they were offering me was a chance to become a legitimate masseuse but it was getting trained. They would have people show me how to work the body and be called a massage therapist and get me books on it, and you know, keep me interested, and every time, you know, I was with Jeffrey, literally was about massages, I don't mean just going in and have sex with him. I mean massage, because it would always start out with massage and then it would lead into sometimes other things.¶

JS: Alright, once this evolved. into full time employment, what did full tiagiacoyment mean? V: That was entirely having to travel with Jeffrey in every city. as in Palm Beach, I stayed at my apartment, and he would call me to his hou ..on or twice a day sometimes, and that's, you know, do things with him Sometimes we'd go out shopping, sometimes we'd go out and watch a movie. You know, simple things like that, go to an expo or a fair, whatever it was. But when we were in other cities, I was at my apartment_, I lived with him full time. What I mean by full is even in the middle of the night, I could get a ring on my phone next to dd jell me to come in his room, you know, so it was literally full time. ..)" JS: When you say that when you were in Palm 'Beach you were living in your apartment, were you living on your own or wert 7 liying with members of your family at that time? I \ ./.--,, V: No, after I uit offered to get me an apartment in Palm Beach somewhere, = Palm Be4 40 it was a nice apartment. He furnished it for me, it was absolutely beautiful; but yeali, that's the only time I would spend time away from him really. L----,/ JS: This apartment wag, on Palm Beach Boulevard or out in the Village of Palm Beach? V: I so honestly don't remember. I've been trying to rack my brain because the FBI was asking the same thing and were trying to find it, but yeah, I'm Not sir_. I didn't get to ,spend as 'much time in it, I was only there about an entire week out of every month iirobabry, . but the majority of the time I was with Jeffrey anyways. It was somewhere in Palm Beach. I don't know about Palm Beach drive. I don't even remember the Palm Beach drive anymore so I'm not too sure. JS: Ok, let me see if I can draw the distinction for you and maybe that will help you to help us? Palm Beach is a village that is... V: No, no, no, I got Palm Beach, I just didn't know the Palm Beach Drive, like what street it's off of. Were you talking about a street?¶

JS: Yes, I was talking about a street. Palm Drive is on the island of Palm Beach, and it's a street that is lined with large palm trees, and I'm wondering if this was an apartment on the island or was this an apartment out west of town...¶

V: No, it was actually in Palm Beach, not on the island.¶

JS: Alright.¶

V: I would be driven, it was closer to my family than it was closer to him. idays A(' tede to be close enough to everybody else so that when I was in town, I could • go them quickly.¶

JS: iOk. So we're not talking about Palm Boulevard. We're7t ut the town of Palm west of town. Jeffrey got you an apartment out there. )¶

V: That's correct.¶

JS: When he was in Palm Beach, you were gener g at the mansion, you were staying at the apartment that he got for you ouk J town.¶

V: That's correct.¶

JS: Ok.¶

V: I mean then there was timesi rdon aorta say that every time I stayed at my apartment. There was times we'd flyback from some city maybe too late at night to really want to go back home, so you inovv, it's like 12:00 at night or 1:00 in the morning. I was just staying in the yellow roomy or' like that; one of the guest rooms in Palm Beach. But majority of ft time, I would definitely want to get back to my own apartment.¶

JS: Alright. WW1 werecthe7general hours of your full time employment when ...?¶

( V: There Was not set hours. It wasn't like logging, and you know, hitting the shift button, nothing like that. The way I would get paid would be, ok, if I was in Palm Beach, I would get $200 an hour to massage JefErey or some of his friends and then go home. So it would be like that. If I was traveling with him, it would be per massage, so I would be getting paid per day. So I wouldn't be getting paid on an hourly rate. He wouldn't say ok, today you're going to work for me from 7:00 in the morning until 8:00 at night. It never like that. I was on call all the time.¶

JS: When you were here in Palm Beach, were you actually getting paid only for the time spent massaging Jeffrey or were you getting paid from your arrival at his house until you left the house?¶

V: From the time the massage started.¶

JS: From the time the massage started. Ok.¶

V: Sometimes we'd go there and I would wait for a while or talk with Ghislaine and Jeffrey about something or we'd meet somewhere and talk about something. A lot of times, I'd meet him upstairs in his room where he was ready for me. But then there was a lot of times where it didn't start right away, so he couldn't really pay me from the time I got there sometimes unless it was just paid from the time I massaged him til the time the massage Atairi was over.¶

c JS: Alright. Did your duties for Jeffrey ever include anything other roviding him massages and sex in connection with the massages? Did he ev - u any other responsibilities to perform?¶

V: I was asked to do the same things that I did to Jeffrey to a few hiA fellow colleagues as well. Those were my duties. He looked at it this/ wly 43 that I was going to be a professional massage therapist, and maybe I neededsonie cl4ntele, so he had me perform erotic massages on a few people.¶

JS: Did that start here in Palm Beach County?¶

V: It did. The first one did.¶

JS: Ok, and how long after you fir t Je y did he first ask you to provide services for one of his friends?¶

V: About 9 months, I it was. t wasn't a full year, it wasn't 6 months, but between 6 months and a year, which is why I'm saying 9 months.¶

JS: And when you provided-services to a friend of Jeffrey's, who paid you for those services?¶

V: Jeffrey would. I would get paid the next time I saw Jeffrey, so if I was invited to the Breakers Hotel to give a massage, I would give a massage, I would go home, and the next day when I saw Jeffrey, he would pay me for what I did. So, it was paid always by him, it was set up by him, so he always knew what to pay me. I did get tips and things like that, if you call it that, you know, like a hundred dollar tip or something from a few of them, you know, yeah.¶

JS: Was there ..¶

V: There was always payment from Jeffrey.¶

JS: Was there ever any discussion with Jeffrey about what was expected to happen when you provided massage services to one of Jeffrey's friends?¶

V: In a roundabout way, yes. In so many ways, Jeffrey really really had to train me, and that was why Ghislaine said that she and Jeffrey enjoyed me so much was because they never really had to speak much to me to tell me what they wanted me to do. You know, I wasn't waiting for you know, their directions. Jeffrey would tell me to go give an erotic massage to friends. He wouldn't give me much detail about it, but he would say to treat them like you treat me.¶

JS: Did he refer to it as an erotic massage or are those your words?¶

V: Erotic massage is my words. That's exactly what it was, but he wo them how he wanted it, so I'd do what he wanted without having to more. I mean, I complied with what he wanted because it was know, I don't know how to say it, it was just very mindboggling w let him have so much control or power over me basically. The massages woul be routine to what Jeffrey wanted with my so called new clientele, and with their o would ask me to provide them with sexual pleasure after the massage. to treat to me words of a, I don't¶

JS: Did you ever report back to Jeffrey about what en you provided massages to his friends?¶

V: Of course, of course, and I knew that It ds were reporting back to him as well because there were times where he would instigate conversation by saying you know, so and so had a great time, you did wonderful, you know so and so gave me a call and told LE how it went_...¶

JS: Did Jeffrey ever elicit details\frnm,you? "Tell me what happened, describe in detail what went on?"¶

V: No, but he would have a laugh, he had a laugh with me a few times about some of their different mannerisms, guess you would say, like some of them, one guy had a foot fetish and that was really weird and I mentioned it to Jeffrey, and we would have a laugh over it. lie didn't want to know details. He wasn't asking me "so tell me what did you guys do- exactly." No, he just basically gave me a slap on the back and said, you know, good job. And we had some kind of conversation about it. I can't recall any conversation /off the top of my head. I really don't know one. It's been that long. But yeah, we did talk ab0ut it briefly.¶

JS: Can you give me an estimate as to the number of friends for whom Jeffrey provided and paid for your services?¶

V: There was about, you know, I don't know, 8 guys possibly.¶

JS: And are you able to name those people for me?¶

V: No, not at this stage. I just, some of these people are really influential in power, and I don't want to start another shitstorm with a few of them. I'll tell you that there was some erotic massages given to, I'm just afraid to say it to you.¶

JS: Ok, Virginia.¶

V: It's like geez, I don't know if I want to, I'm really scared of where this is gonna go.¶

JS: Alright. I understand that, and as I told you from the beginning, if I ask your\ question that you are uncomfortable answering, you just tell me that, and I will-movebn, and I understand that at least right now, you are uncomfortable answerin am certainly going to respect that.¶

V: Thank you so much, Jack. C.) JS: No, that's quite alright. I am very appreciate of the cooperation you are providing, and I don't want you at any time to feel that we are takingimfakadvantage of that cooperation, so give me the information that you're comfortable ,givtng me, and if we get to a point where you're uncomfortable, I will respect that and vielimove on from there. ),¶

V: Ok.¶

JS: I want to talk a little bit about the_traveling that you did with Jeffrey. About how long into your relationship with him gkilisfust start?¶

V: Immediately. I started traveling jimmediately. Not internationally until I think about, Gosh, I can't remember ,even, I think it was a year later that we started doing international travel. Maybe like 9 months to a year again. Not too sure to be honest.¶

JS: So that would have approximately the summer of 1999? Somewhere around there?¶

V: Yes. Sorfiea0here around there. Somewhere around a year, somewhere around there, I can't :pinpoint it exactly. But like I said, we started doing domestic traveling immediately, so my rust destination with him was New York and Santa Fe and the ,C.aaibean, California, I would take trips with him occasionally. Sometimes we would go to St. Louis or New Orleans or Santa Cruz. We were traveling just about everywhere I think.¶

JS: How did you travel?¶

V: Well, we took Jeffrey's private jet, and unless I was being sent somewhere by myself for what we were just talking about before, then I would travel on a what do you call, a public jet, whatever it is...¶

JS: commercial flight?¶

V: Yes. Just a normal flight, an e-ticket.¶

JS: Like the rest of us common folk.¶

V: But when I was traveling with Jeffrey, the majority of the time would be on the black jet.¶

JS: Now, when you say there would be times when you would travel by yourselfJiecause he was sending you somewhere, tell me about that. How did that come about?¶

V: So, one of his colleagues would be at the Carribean or Santa Fe or ev'atx(New York, or wherever, and he would call me up on those days where I am not 7iorldiag with him or in Palm Beach with him, and he would ask me to get on the next,plarte to ,so and so and go meet so and so, and that's when I would take e-tickets. His seiretaarryy or special assistant, whatever, would organize it for me and give me the details anNabuld just walk up the line and they'd let me right through.¶

JS: Can you give me any ideas as to how many happened that Jeffrey would send you off to meet some friend of his at some lo de of Palm Beach?¶

V: How many times it happened? I'm not t bably about 10-15 times.¶

JS: Ok. And on those occasions, ho mu time would you spend with one of Jeffrey's friends when you were sent to a that you would have to travel to?¶

V: Only a couple of days. OC, that's it.¶

JS: And how were you paid ) se trips?¶

V: I would be paid in t pon my arrival back with Jeffrey. So, whenever I was back with Jeffrey, he yyrrauld count up how many days I've had, sometimes give me even more than what I deskr, not deserved, but what I earned and give me a little extra.¶

JS: ally rate for those trips or was that per massage also?¶

V: P massage. With Jeffrey, I would be honest I wouldn't tell him I did 15 massages if I didn t. He knew he could trust me. He could always come back to the other person that he sent me to give massages and ask them as well, so you know, it was always by per massage.¶

JS: Alright. When we've been talking about massages, tell me exactly what it is we're talking about when we speak about massages.¶

V: Same thing I would do to Jeffrey. Again, it would start out as a massage, which would start with them being naked, and me giving him a legitimate massage to begin with, so I'd start with his feet, go up to his calves, up his legs, buttocks, back, his neck, his head, his arms, yada yada, and then it would be time to flip over, and some of the men would want me to continue on massaging the front side of them and they would instigate me to begin having sex with them or foreplay, whatever you want to call it.¶

JS: So routinely, these massages involved sexual activity. Is that accurate?¶

V: That is accurate.¶

JS: Ok. Let's talk about the travel that you were involved in when you were on\JefErey's private plane. Generally speaking, who were the passengers on t e ne when you traveled.¶

V: Well, Larry was the pilot, and then there was a short, small, I don't know his name, but he was a co-pilot, and then he changed and there Was other guy brought in later on. Generally speaking, there was always Jeffrey/sometimes Ghislaine, sometimes Emory, sometimes a whole bunch of other girls, sometime, famous people, sometimes some politicians or yeah, just about anybody coul&flton\Ins plane. There was never no any set routine who would come and whosOuleg.o/ It was an influx of people on Jeffrey's airplane.¶

JS: I want to deal with these things separately in order to respect some of the reservations that you have, so I'm going to ask you wpo the people were that you remember flying with Jeffrey on his plane when-Yon were personally present without regard to whether there was any sexual activity/that occurred on the plane or not. So I'm not asking you to implicate any of these famous people in improper conduct, but just tell me what the names of the people are that you remember that you consider to be famous people.¶

V: Ok, there was Naomi MM, Heidi Klum, there was Bill Clinton. There was Al (?) Gore, there was a Whole bunch of models, I wouldn't really honestly be able to give their names. There was Matt Groning the producer of the simpons cartoon, Jack CCousteau's granddau6ie" lot of interior designers, architects, politicians. I am just trying to think of as ¹¹ , ^I'lames as possible for you. Off the top of my head, that's as good as I can get for.¶

JS: 0 alnght, that's fine. And again, I am not implying by my questions, nor do I want yo answers to be interpreted as your suggesting that any of those people that you have just identified were engaged in any improper activities on any particular flight, but I want to talk to you now about what went on on occasion on the airplane. Ok?¶

V: Ok. It was a lot of the same thing that went down on the ground. A lot of times, it would be just be me and Jeffrey, or me and Jeffrey and Ghislaine, or me and Jeffrey and some other girl, sometimes Emmy, Sarah, and . There would be sexual conduct, there would be foreplay, there was a bed in there, so we could basically reenact exactly what was happening in the house. It would start off with massaging or we would start off with foreplay, sometimes it would lead to, you know, orgies.¶

JS: Were there occasions when you were in Jeffrey's company, whether on the ground or in the air, where there were other girls present whom you knew to be under age 18?¶

V: Yes. There was a constant influx of girls coming in and going out. And we were all very young. On occasion, there was some older girls, and I don't mean older as in like in their 30s or anything, I mean like 28, 29, something like that, just very rarely. The majority of the girls that Jeffrey actually met or had on his plane or in his house were under age.¶

JS: Do you know how it is that Jeffrey established with any of these eratte girls?¶

V: Yes, I do. He would send me personally or with other girls t clubs pr shops, to _pick up anywhere, I mean we were constantly on the look for other-Bids that might satisfy Jeffrey.¶

JS: What instructions were you given about what to¶

V: Young, pretty, you = knol,l.a fun personality, Die uldn't be black If they were any other descent other than, they had t exotically beautiful. That was just about it.¶

JS: Who gave you those criteria?¶

V: They both gave us the instructi0ns, a wasn't just me, Jeffrey asked most girls to bring a friend and make extra money. They would use us young girls So that way it probably looked a lot more safer to a girl that we were procuring to younger girls that were already doing it. That was the way that Jeffrey had it.¶

JS: Were you given tion at all on how to approach these girls?¶

V: Yes. J and Ghislaine both taught me to, depending on the circumstances, depentatitin e girl, you could offer them a job as a massage therapist or you could tell them you have a really rich friend with, you know, great contacts in the acting world or modeling world and he loves pretty girls, you should come back and meet him, make sotne money, you know, we had a whole bunch of ways to be able to procure girls.¶

JS: Can you give me any idea as to the total number of underage girls that you know engaged in sexual conduct with Jeffrey during the period of time you had your relationship with him?¶

V: I would have no way of estimating that whatsoever. I mean, there could be a hundred, there could be more, honestly I'm not too sure how many girls, really. I wish I did know. I mean like I said there were so many over the course of 4 years with Jeffrey.¶

JS: Let me see if we can try to narrow it down a little bit. Is there any doubt in your mind that it was more than 10?¶

V: Yes, there was definitely more than 10.¶

JS: Ok, what I want you to do is to give me the highest number that you are comfortable in saying there were definitely more than X number of underage girls that I know Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sex with while I had a relationship with him. How would, you fill in that blank? Definitely more than how many? Assoc¶

V: I'd say definitely more than a hundred.¶

JS: Alright. Did Jeffrey ever help to pick out your clothes?¶

V: ■ yes. I mean he wasn't out to dress me like a porn star or g. He would always dress me very classy, but we'd just go shopping all the hi gether.¶

JS: Did he ever express any style preferences inzt ow he wanted you to dress? Besides dressing classy, I'm, you know, any -other Aggestion to you about how he wanted you dressed?¶

V: He didn't, like I said, wasn't trying, to dress me in any prostitute way or anything like that. It was nice, classy outfits I was wearing like Gucci, Dolce Gabbana, Chanel, things like that. He was buying me a o vry,"very nice clothing. It was provocative. I mean I was wearing miniskirts, ai3dligh rt shorts and little shirts that showed my belly and my cleavage and everything; t y were very expensive clothes.¶

JS: Was there every any drekupirole playing?¶

V: Yes. There was. of it. Jeffrey loved the latex outfits Ghislarte had for us girls, he had bondagt outfi, he had all different kinds of outfits, but his favorite was the schoolg¶

JS: Tell t that.¶

V: Well, you know, Ghislaine would take me to dress me up to surprise J.E or Jeffrey would ask Me to get dressed up, that would include wearing a tiny little skirt with nothing underneath, a collared shirt that you would be wearing to school with a tie in it, tied up _in a bow_, my hair in pigtail; stockings on up to my knees, and I would go in there and act like a kid and we'd do role playing sexing.¶

JS: Did Jeffrey ever brag to you about the age of any of the girls with whom he had relationships?¶

V: Yes, he did. He did all the time. The worst one that I heard from his own mouth was this pretty 12 year old girls he had flown in for his birthday. It was a surprise birthday gift from one of his friends and they were from France. I did see them, I did meet them. Jeffrey bragged afterwards after he met them that they were 12 year olds and flown over from France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out. Those were the worst ones. He was constantly bragging about girls' ages or where he got them from or their past and how terrible their past was and good he is making it for them..¶

JS: Where were the 12 year old girls flown to from France? Where did they come to?¶

V: Palm Beach.¶

JS: And were they flown in on Jeff's private plane or did they get¶

V: No. They were transported by somebody else.¶

JS: Ok. Was the sexual activity that went on on the any of the crew was aware of what was going c nducted in such a way so that¶

V: They were told to knock if they had to 9 e if the crew had to come out. They were told, you know, to come out as little as po e, so they weren't out there hanging out watching everything, no, but it doesn't take an idiot to put two and two together to say well there's a whole bunch of half dressed teenagers on board with this old man who is constantly being massagedpy'than and he wants me to keep the door shut for what reason? I mean, only the put that together, but yeah, they knew.¶

JS: Did Mr. Epstein ever te1ko ybu about people of power and influence owing him favors?¶

V: He would laugh al you know, I never really knew what to take serious from Jeffrey because he su a funny character at times. You never knew if what he was saying was true t. Yeah, lots of people owed him favors from what he told me. He's got every a s pocket, and he would laugh about he helps people for the sole purpose in theiend ey owe him something. That's why I believe he does so many favors in the ce.¶

JS: and how did you first become aware that Mr. Epstein was in trouble with the law?¶

V: I was first informed by, I think someone from the FBI called me first and started to ask me questions, and I started to answer the questions but then fear took over, and I just said look, I don't know what's going on, I've got a young family that I don't want to risk, you know, please don't bother me about this again, and it was real short simple conversation, and within a week or 2, I had gotten a call from Jeffrey's attorney, and then a week later, Jeffrey himself.¶

Ok, well let's back up before we get to those conversations and tell me approximately when it was that you were contacted by the person who you believe was with the FBI.¶

V: Ok. It's hard for me to pinpoint, if I had to pinpoint it, it would be in 2007 sometime.¶

IS: Alright. And you were living in Australia at that time, correct?¶

V: Correct.¶

correct, by my cell phone. V: That's¶

-SA JS: Ok and do you have any idea how your name came up leading4tha4 contact.¶

JS: You were contacted by telephone?¶

V: No idea. No idea whatsoever. When I did ask, I waset6INhat some girls had revealed my name, I guess, and that's how everybody, the FBI _knew tP contact me.¶

cCI\ JS: OK. V: But I don't know offhand or sorry, I just %l Sinto the wrong room.¶

JS: Ok.¶

A40(....e¶

V: Sorry go on.¶

N -¶

JS: Yes & I'll never tell heitiOu that. Virginia, how long was it after that phone call from the FBI person were you contacted by Mr. Epstein's lawyers.¶

V: Like a week. It was,back to back to each other. I remember being so scared after talking . to the FBI g what's happening, what's going on. It's been like 6 years, 7 years at that stag did they fmd me & what do I have to do with this? So yeah, I do rememb t iat cry well, and it was only about a week later I was called by his attorney.¶

JS: o elf that contacted you, do you remember?¶

V: w tNtoot say sureif Billt,,hibustohoennueor t name, haer bobteethnsfresom the eis col. N. og, tiot was. dBill Bill mind¶

JS: What do you remember about that conversation?¶

V: I remember a Mr. Goldberger as well, I remember, there might have been two of them.¶

JS: AlrighL¶

V: I can't remember which one it was. I want to say Bill is the good one.¶

JS: Alright, so either Bill or a Mr. Goldberger or both of them contacted you, and what do you remember about that?¶

V: I don't know if it was the same guy who contacted me that week later who put me in touch with Jeffrey. I think he was on the phone and he put speakerphone on with Jeffrey. So he connected me with Jeffrey. I don't know if it was the same guy or different, but I definitely know that Bill was the first guy to contact me. I'm pretty sjzabout that.¶

JS: Ok. Tell me about that conversation.¶

V: He asked me what I knew about what's going on with Jeffrey ank pp ").ently, there was an investigation being held about some of the girls who had come out and said that Jeffrey had sexual contact with them under the age of a minor and that he was discrediting lot of these girls and making them out to be drug addicts and prostitutes and what have you so they wouldn't be looked upon as worthy in the court's eyes so to speak. And you know, he told me in the first five minutes that, you know, if I stay quiet, that "I'll be looked after" . And that was the exact way it was said. It wasn't like you know, I'm gonna pay you a zillion dollars or anything if you be quiet, but if I stay quiet, I would "looked after". And I remember saying I don't want any part to do with this. You know, this is not something I want to be a part of, I've got a young family. I wish the best for everybody in this, you know, take care kind of thing. A week later, I was called after the hearing by one of Jeffrey's lawykiiii i I can't tell you exactly which one it was but he had Jeffrey on the other line and/he connected Jeffrey and I, and Jeffrey tried to make some simple conversation, "How ate you? How have things been?" You know what I mean, (- catching up. ,I . .¶

JS: Do you know if lawyer, did the lawyer stay on the line while Jeffrey was speaking to you?¶

V: I'm pretty he did. That's why I think Jeffrey was on speaker phone because it soundAn*t erent, and I was never taken off the line to begin with or connected to an link so I was pretty sure Jeffrey was on speaker phone and the lawyer was making the call. After the simple conversation, it led to what was going on again and you know, Jeffrey couldn't believe it. You know, he thought he helped all these girls out. He didn't think he was wrong in any circumstance here at all. A lot of these girls were drug addicts and just after drug money. You know, he was really putting down these women or these girls I should say, not giving them the credit they deserved, and then he exactly repeated what the lawyer said the week before is that he would look after me if I stayed quiet, and if I need any help, you know, his lawyers would represent me and he would get legal help for me, whatever I need, he would do, and I told him exactly, I said, "Jeffrey, I'm the mother of two children at that stage. I'm away from everything there, I don't want to be a part of it. I'm not going to speak to anybody and I don't want to speak to anybody, I don't want to be involved." That was the last time I heard from him. And the¶

next thing I knew, I was sent my victim's letter, my notification of being a victim through the US Attorney's Office and that's when I knew it was well out there enough not to have Jeffrey's lawyers come back on me and discredit me in the same way he had done to all the other girls. So, I called up [REDACTED] Bird who was the recommended lawyers on my paperwork that they had given me and started going from there.¶

JS: So you contact Mr. [REDACTED] Bergs' office and then you were dealing with his office from that point forward.¶

V: That's correct.¶

JS: Tell me about the ending of your relationship with Jeffrey. That is, at what point in time did your full time employment end and how did that happen?¶

V: Ok. So, it hadn't really ended. I walked away from it all. Jeffrey sent me to Thailand where I met my husband and escaped to Australia, never to return back to the states. About 6-months prior to that, he came up with a proposition that I thought was really disgustingly sick. And it really showed me for the first time in 4 years I had been with him that nothing was going to change and I was always just going to be used by him(?) which I did not like. He offered me a mansion and some of his money every month, I forget what he called it, a monthly income of what he made to bear one of his children. The proposition was that if anything ever happened between Jeffrey and I, that I would have to sign my child over to him basically and that the child would be his and Ghislaine's, and I would be looking after it as long as nothing happened between Jeffrey and I. So, I was kind of freaked out by all of that. I pushed Jeffrey more to please get me some more training, you know, and I was getting older and not of as much interest to Jeffrey anyways. I was 19 now, and he likes a female a lot younger. So he sent me to Thailand, in September 2002. I was first supposed to meet a girl there and bring her back with me, but I never met up with her. I proceeded get a short course in Thai massage so that was to shut me up about my training so I went there, and one of my friends from school invited me to watch a fight, like a muay thai fight, which is like a form kickboxing. So I went and watched it, and I saw this guy that was a really good fighter, and a girl's word, looked really hot, so I asked my friend who knew him to introduce me. We got introduced and fell in love immediately, 3 days later Rob proposed and 7 days later I was being married in a buddist temple. I called Jeffrey and told him I'm sorry, I'm never coming back. I've gotten married, I've fallen in love. I thought he'd wish the best for me but he was kind of rude and he just said "have a good life" and hung up the phone, and that was the last time I'd talked to him ever until all this started again.¶

JS: Ok. Virginia, is there anything else that you would like to add to what you have told us up to this point in time?¶

V: I'd like to know that this time around something's going to be done about it and that Jeffrey and a lot of his colleagues, no matter how rich they are, will know that there is¶

law and that there is people that still believe in it. So that's it. Thank you guys for listening to me, hearing me out and helping me. It's kind of hard to get through.¶

JS: Thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure it has been very difficult and I am very appreciative of the courage you have shown in doing what you have done, which really brings me to the last subject, and that is what was it that motivated you to go public with all of this?¶

V: Sharon Richard contacted me. I like her, I do, I like her a lot. I know she's a journalist, and journalists are normally bloodsucking leeches, but I like her for that, but she is an honest bloodsucking leech. She told me a lot about what was still going on, and she showed me a picture of Jeffrey with a little girl who looks like she could have been 12 years old. I mean it was disgusting. I agreed to talk with her, I never agreed to do anything until she showed me some pictures, and at that stage, being a mother of 3 children and having a daughter who I would do anything for to protect, I would put my neck on the line to make sure she never has to go through what I had to go through, and knowing all of this, and knowing that he's still out there doing the same exact thing with no regrets, no remorse, no worry about what he's doing to those girls, and all those girls feeling the same way that I did, so I, you know, I'm doing it because I believe in my heart of hearts it's the right thing to do. It's what I would want somebody to do for my daughter or my sister or my friend, and it saddens me to know that it's still going on right now. It's like the seashell story. I don't know if you're heard the story about the little kid who throws back a starfish, you know, the little brother tries to ask his sister, "why do you throw them in, they're all gonna die anyways, the little girl says "well, it's this one that I can help, and this one that I can help," and that's what I feel like I'm doing. I'm making a small dent in this big world we live in.¶

JS: I certainly appreciate that courage, and I have heard that story, and you're absolutely right, that one person may not be able to make a difference for everyone, but one person can make a difference for someone, and hopefully, you are making a difference for someone, and we're gonna do the best we can to make sure you are making a difference for as many people as possible.¶

V: Thanks Jack.¶

JS: Just a few other follow up things I want to ask you and again, if any of these questions are questions that you're uncomfortable in responding to, then don't hesitate to tell me that. Do you have any recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that "Bill Clinton owes me favors"?¶

V: Yes. I do. It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor. He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious. It was just a joke.¶

JS: Where was here?¶

V: He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.¶

JS: When you say you asked him why is Bill Clinton here, where was here?¶

V: On the island.¶

JS: When you were present with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on the islan else was there?¶

V: Ghislaine, Emmy, and there was 2 young girls that I could iden really knew them well anyways. It was just 2 girls from New York.¶

JS: And were all of you staying at Jeffrey's house on the island indluding Bill Clinton?¶

V: That's correct He had about 4 or 5 different villas an I and separate from the main house, and we all stayed in the villas.¶

JS: Were sexual orgies a regular occurrence on ,tic e i \I ,at Jeffrey's house?¶

JS: If we were to take sworn testimoltfro the people I am going to name, and if those people were to tell the truth'aliMkt what they knew, do you believe that any of the following people would have relev'nt information about Jeffrey's taking advantage of underage girls? So I'll just name a name, and you tell me yes if they told the truth, I think they'd have relevant information or no, I don't think they would, or I don't know whether they would or not. Ok? You understand?¶

V: Yes.¶

JS: Ok. Les Weimer.¶

V: ithinkhe has relevant information, but I don't think he'll tell you the truth.¶

JS: Ok. }Alan Dershowitz.¶

V: Yes.¶

JS: David Copperfield.¶

V: Don't know.¶

JS: Tommy Matola.¶

V: Don't know.¶

JS: Prince Andrew.¶

V: Yes, he would know a lot of the truth. Again, I don't know how much he would be able to help you with, but seeing he's in a lot of trouble himself these days, I think he might, so I think he may be valuable. I'm not too sure of him.¶

JS: Ok. Virginia, I think that's all I have for you. Let me tell you what I uld like to do. As I told you in the beginning of this conversation, we've been rding it, and hopefiffly, we've got a clear enough recording so that we've tare o everything accurately and when it's transcribed, it will be clear and accurate, but_, hat I would like to do is transcribe it, send it to you, have you take a look at it, and if there's anything that we got wrong in the statement, you can write back and yott,r tnalce changes in the transcript so that the transcript is accurate. Is that fair?? ,$)¶

V: No worries. That is fair. No problem.¶

JS: Alright, great. I really do appreciate that e e what the best way is to send the transcript to you.¶

V: Email. If you just want to send it b if you want to send it by mail, either or.¶

JS: Ok. Give me your email ad u would please.¶

V:¶

JS: Let me read that bak to you:¶

V: Yep that's '¶

BE: appreciate it.¶

V: , Brad.¶

JS: you very very much. Bye Bye now.¶

V: Take care Jack. Nice meeting you.¶

JS: You too.¶

^*Redaction bas been made at the request of the witness.¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff(s),¶

vs.¶

iiiiiiOTHS dividually, J. individually, and L.M., individually,¶

DefendaCc¶

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITI-O FFREY EPSTEIN¶

; ,7¶

5, 2012 9: m - 10:03 a. m.¶

SEARCY C4DEN 4SLe EY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, PA 39 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida 33409¶

IcZ/*¶

Stenographically Reported By: Tammy Nestor, RPR¶

¶

APPEARANCES:¶

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:¶

JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Weal Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

i l E.. KNIGHT, ESQUIRE L. ACKERMAN, JR., ESQUIRE WHITE BURNETT, PA Espirito Santo Plaza 1395 Brickell Avenue, lids Floor Miami, Plorlda 33131¶

ON BEIMl D i F llDANT:¶

JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & %miss, PA One Ckadake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue Smith West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

DAFtREN K. 1NDYKE, ESQUIRE 301 East 66th Street, #108 New York, New York 10065¶

2 3 4 S THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today's date b January 25, 2012. The time is approximately 9:34 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition of Jeffrey Epstein in the mailer of Epstein versus¶

6 This deposition is being conducted at 2139 7 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, 8 Florida.¶

9 The court reporter is Tammy Nestor of 10 Phipps Reporting. The videographer is Chris 11 Kennedy of Legal Video Services. Inc. in 12 association with Phipps Reporting.¶

13 And will the counsel please announce 14 appearances for the record.¶

15 MR. SCAROIA: My name is Jack Scarola. 16 I'm counsel for Brad Brad is also 17 present¶

28 Mk ' IGHT: Knight on behalf 19 of Jeff whin,¶

20 G GER: Jack Goldberger on behalf 21 o1 J1 Epstein.¶

22 [NOVICE: Darren hadylre ma behalf of rty Epstein.¶

MR. ACKERMAN: NE Ackerman on behalf ofJeffrey Epstein.¶

3¶

INDEX¶

EXAMINATION:¶

By Mr. Scarola¶

( cVHIB1TS¶

EXITIBIT DESCRIP11ON PAGE¶

Third Amended Complaint in LM v. Epstein 16¶

1 2 3¶

5¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶

Was called as a Will)C4 and after being duly swum on oath was examined and testified as follows:¶

EXAMINATION¶

BY MR SC.ARO1A:¶

Q Would you please riate your full name and your current resideace address?¶

A PmJeffrey Edward Epsicia And my residence address is 6100 Rcd Hook Boulevard in Virgin 'thirds¶

Q Do you maintain any other residences presently?¶

A I have vacation hones in New Mexico. Palm Ekach, New York. and Paris.¶

Q Would you give us the address of each. please.¶

A Ye,. New York is 9 East Thu Street. New Mexico is Zono Ranch Road. Pans is?? Avenue Fah, FG-C-H. AM whore else? Palm Beach is 358 El Bnllo Way.¶

THE V1DEOGRAPHER: Pardon me, sir.¶

THE WITNESS: Yes.¶

THE FIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me Do you have your mike on? Thanks.¶

2 3 Q Do you now or have you ever had a sexual addiction?¶

4 MR. KNIGHT: I'm going to instruct him not 5 to answer the question. That's outside of the 6 area of this abuse of process lawsuit.¶

7 And just to let you know, he's here to 8 answer all the questions you want relative to 9 the abuse of process. The judge has been pretty 10 clear relative to the discovery regarding any of 11 the prior sexual allegations, et cetera. And 12 just so we don't waste your time or our time, 13 I'll be consistent on that per what the judge 14 has previously discussed regarding discovery.¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you and I have a very 16 different understanding of what the court's 17 prior rulings have been. But we'll lel the 18 court deal with that.¶

19 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

20 Q Do you now or have you ever had a sexual 21 preference for minors?¶

22 MR. KNIGHT: Same.¶

23 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

24 Q Have you ever acted on a sexual preference 25 for minors?¶

1 MR. KNIGHT: Same.¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q Have you ever inform 4 yoor legal counsel that you)t ve preference 5 for minors?¶

6 MR. KNIGHT: Sa¶

7 BY MR. SCAR¶

8 Q Have you t rmed anyone other than 9 your onset t t you have acted on a sexual 10 pre( a or minors?¶

GUT: Same.¶

CAROLA:¶

ave you ever sought or received tuition, counseling, or treatment for any tom of sexual addiction? 15¶

MR. KNIGHT: Same. 16¶

BY MR. SCAROLA: 17¶

Q Have you ever sought or received evaluation, counseling, or treatment for any sex-related issue? 18 19 20¶

MR. KNIGHT: Same. 21¶

BY MR. SCAROLA: 22¶

Q Have you ever retained the services of a consultant to assist in changing your public image following your arrest on sex-related charges? 23 24 25¶

2 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

3 Q Have you ever discussed with anyone 4 undertaking an effort to change your public image 5 following your arrest for and conviction of a 6 sex-related crime?¶

7 MR. KNIGHT: Same.¶

8 BY MR SCAROLA:¶

9 Q Have you ever been convicted of a crime?¶

10 A Yes.¶

11 Q What was the crime of which you were 12 convicted?¶

13 A Two counts, one soliciting titutiou 14 and procuring a minor for p¶

15 Q Did you, in fac Mos acts?¶

16 MR COLD a I can invoke the Fifth 17 Amendment u or you can invoke 18 it yours p invoke the 19 privi¶

20 THE Nd.SS: I'm going to invoke my Fifth meta right.¶

AROLA:¶

low many times have you solicited for citation?¶

A I'm going invoke my Fifth Amendment right.¶

1 Q How many times have you solicited a minor 2 for prostitution?¶

3 A Same answer.¶

4 Q How ninny times have you solicited for 5 prostitution in the State of Florida?¶

6 A Same answer.¶

7 Q How many times have you solicited a minor 8 for prostitution in the State of Florida?¶

9 A Same answer.¶

10 Q How many times have you solicited for 11 prostitution in the Virgin Islands?¶

12 MR. KNIGHT: Can we stop it here just for 13 a second? Can we go off the record for one 14 minute?¶

15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:39. We 16 are going off the record.¶

17 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the 18 record.)¶

19 MR. SCAROLA: I would like you to take it 20 down, please.¶

21 MR. KNIGHT: Fine.¶

22 AIR. SCAROLA: And we'll go back on the 23 record. Thank you.¶

24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by.¶

25 MR. KNIGHT: I'm wondering if you have any¶

intention to ask any questions, and you may be, 2 any questions outside of this clearly harassing 3 area relative to issues that are outside of the 4 four corners of the complaint or whether this 5 is just going to be a continuance of questions 6 of this witness that have no other means of 7 advancing this lawsuit but only have means of doing other things of which I won't — I don't 9 care to list them here. Do you plan to go into 10 other areas?¶

11 MR. SCAROIA: I am— I am planning on 12 taking a very thorough and comprehensive 13 deposition of Mr. Epstein.¶

14 Mk KNIGHT: Are you asking — planning to 15 ask any questions that are not sexual or 16 criminal in nature?¶

17 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sure there will be 18 many that you would probably not consider 19 sexual or criminal in nature, but I don't know.¶

20 MR. KNIGHT: Let's proceed for a little 21 while, see what we can do, because certainly we 22 have taken the time out to come up here, 23 people's schedules have been made, et cetera, 24 people have traveled long distances, but we may 25 have to quit and go to the court.¶

1 BY MR SCAROLA: 2 Q Have your ever solicited 3 in the Virgin Islands?¶

4 A Same answer. 5 Q That is that the 6 Fifth Amendment voicing your¶

7 A Yes. 8 Q — right? 9 A Mr. Sdsola 10 11 you ever solicited for prostitution¶

12 13 14 answer. ye you ever solicited for prostitution hew Mexico?¶

15 16 17 A Same answer. Q Have you ever solicited for prostitution in Paris?¶

18 19 20 A Same answer. Q Have you ever solicited for prostitution anywhere at any time?¶

21 22 23 A Same answer. Q Have you ever solicited a minor for prostitution anywhere at any time?¶

24 25 A Same answer. Q Who is the prostitute that you solici led 2 fur prostitution with respect to the claim on whit you were convicted?¶

3 A Same answer.¶

4 5 6 Q Who is the minor that you solicited for prostitution with respect to the claim on which you pled guilty?¶

7 A Same answer.¶

B Q Did you, in fact, plead guilty to soliciting for prostitution?¶

10 MR. KNIGHT: Asked and answered.¶

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.¶

12 BY MR SCAROLA:¶

13 14 Q Did you, in fact, plead guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution?¶

15 A No.¶

16 17 18 Q Where was it AM you solicited fnr prostitution in the Manner-- in the mailer in vs Mob you pled polity?¶

19 A Sarre ansv.vg.¶

20 21 Q When was it that you solicited for in the matter in w hich you pled guilty?¶

22¶

are you ever discussed your sex-related t or conviction with any reporter or news media representative?¶

1 MR. KNIGHT: I'm going to instruct you not 2 to answer the question.¶

3 MR. SCAROLA: And what is the basis of 4 that instruction?¶

5 MR. KNIGHT: What is the basis?¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: Yes.¶

7 MR. KNIGHT: What dots it have to do with this lawsuit? It's for no other reason other 9 than to harass him. There are plenty of areas 10 you can go into which are reasonable. We are 11 here.¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: So the objection is 13 relevancy, is that correct?¶

14 MA KNIGHT: No, it goes beyond relevancy.¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: Well, what Is it then? 16 MR. KNIGHT: Well, it is harassing. It is 17 used — It is being used to intimidate the¶

18 witness. It is being used for various 19 different reasons. And I believe it is 20 Improper.¶

21 BY hiR.SCAROLA:¶

22 Q Have you ever discussed your sex-related 23 activities with minors in the State of Florida with 24 any reporter or news media representative?¶

1 going to take a quick break if we tan go off 2 the record. 3 TILE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time b 9:30 — 4 9:40. We are going off the record. 5 (Thereupon, a recess was taken at 6 9:43 a.m.) 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 9:50 am. 8 We are back on the record. 9 MR. KNIGHT: As I mentioned earlier, we 10 are here to answer questions relevant to the 11 lawsuit that is at issue. 12 Relative to your question earlier and the 13 instruction not to answer,1 do believe it was 14 appropriate, but I'm going to have 15 Mr. Goldberger address what be believes the — 16 is the — our client is entitled to, but at the 17 same time, there are other issues we want to put 18 on the record. 19 I will allow you to ask more questions, but 20 if it's going to stay on this line, we may have 21 to adjourn. 22 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. This is Jack 23 Goldberger. A couple issues. first, as to the 24 questions that, Mr. Sterols, you asked 25 concerning conversations that Mr. Epstein may¶

1 or may not have had with, l believe you coached 2 it as news reporters or news media, he would hi / 3 invoking Fifth Amendment privileges as to those 4 questions in addition to the objection raised 5 by Mr. Knight. MR KNIGHT: I'm withdrawing the 7 instruction. 8 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. MI right. Anyhow 9 he's invoking Fifth Amendment privileges as to 10 that line of questioning. 11 As to the total line of questioning where 12 ou ore asking Mr. Epstein about sex-related 13 issees, as you know, your client, Mr. 19 filed a lawsuit in federal court where loch 15 seeking to overturn the non-prosecution 16 agreement that Mr. Epstein is a party to. 17 I believe that you are asking these 18 questions in an effort to further Mr. 19 attempts to set aside that non-prosecution 20 agreement, and I think it serves no purpose 21 other than to assist your client in that 22 lawsuit. And I just think it's totally outside the realm of the discovery that is allowed in 24 this case. And I'm simply not going to allow my 25 client to answer those questions given the fact¶

1 that !our client has filed an action to set 2 aside the non.prosecution agreement that 3 Mr. Epstein is a party to. 4 MR SCAROLA: Would you please mark this 5 as Exhibit No. I to this deposition. 6 MR. KNIGHT: As soon as you get the 7 sticker on It. I'll look at that one. 8 ((hereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. I was 9 marked for identification.) 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Is S0IntOtte's phone by a 11 microphone or in their pocket? 12 MR. GOLDBERGER: I am. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPRER: IfyoiSen n put it to 14 the side, please. 15 MR. GOLDBERG I'm an he v.dy o•cr 16 here. 17 MR. INIGH11 Mine o 18 MR. GOLDBERGER: Ill shut it off. 19 M,R. GHT Okay. Thauk you. 20 BY AR / 21 ve been hooded a copy of what's been 22 r hibit No. Ito this deposition. It is a 23 laintiff's Third Amended Complaint is a styled LAI vents Jeffrey Epstein. Have you seen this document before?¶

1 A Not to the best of my recollection, no. 2 Q Do you recall having been sued by 3 on behalf of an individual who was 4 identified by the initials LM? 5 A Yes. sit. 6 Q And is this one of the cases that you 7 contend was abusively prosecuted by 8 A I'm not sure if this is the exact 9 complaint. 10 Q Well, is this the case? 11 A I don't know. 12 Q Which ease is it that you contend 13 abusively prosecuted against you? 10 A It was die LM case. I don't know if this 15 is the specific case. 16 0 Well, I want you to assume that there was 17 only one LM ease that was filed by 18 against you. 19 A That's cortect. 20 Q Do you have any recollection that is at 21 odds with that assumption? 22 A Yes, I do. 23 Q You have a recollection that there was, in 24 fact, a federal court case as well as a stale court 25 case, correct? 17¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: So if you say you are objecting on the basis that it calls for a¶

7 legal conclusion, that's fine. And now I would¶

10 11 *I I, ' GIFT: I'm not instructing him not e.¶

12 SCAROLA:¶

13 14 Okay. Then would you please answer the qualion?¶

15 A I'm sorry. Would you repeat it?¶

16 Q Yes, sir. Is It your contention that¶

17 18 abusively prosecuted the federal court action on behalf of Lhi?¶

19 A Ycs, sir.¶

20 Q How?¶

21 A filed a 234-count federal¶

22 23 24 complaint in conjunaion with his partner Seen Rothstein to enable his partners at RRA to defraud south Florida investors of millions of dollars.¶

1 A Correct.¶

2 Q All right. Now, is it your —¶

3 A I believe that's —¶

4 Q Is it your contention —¶

5 MR. KNIGHT: Finish your answer. Did you 6 finish your answer?¶

7 THE WITNESS: Thai's all right.¶

8 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

9 Q Is it your contention that¶

10 MR. KNIGHT: And any time you want to 11 finish your answer, please do so.¶

12 THE WITNESS: Sure.¶

13 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

14 Q Is It your contention that 15 abusively prosecuted the state court use on behalf 16 of LMT¶

17 A I don't know. Sony.¶

18 Q Is it your contention that 19 abusively prosecuted the federal court case on 20 behalf of LMT¶

21 MR. KNIGHT: Objection, asks for legal 22 conclusions. Obviously there were lawsuits 23 that were raised io this case.¶

24 MR. SCAROLA: You don't need to make a 25 speaking objection —¶

MR. KNIGHT: Okay.¶

9 MR SCAROLA: — that's • isels ... the witness, Mr. Knight.¶

MR KNIGHT: I'sagong o t.¶

like the witness's answer unless you are instructing him pot to answer.¶

Q Were you ever served with that complaint? 9¶

A Not to the best of my recollection. 10¶

Q So one contention is that Mr. 11 12 abusively prosecuted a federal court action on¶

1 Mr. Adler have — excuse me, Mr. Rothstein has now in 2 deposition admitted that they needed to file a complaint to¶

3 show investors that there was real action, in¶

4 Mr. Rothstein's words, going on in federal coon. The 5 investors had not been able to find a filed complaint and¶

6 had complained to Mr. Rothstein that there was no filed 7 complaints two days, excuse me, before Mr. filed¶

8 the federal complaint for 234.¶

13 behalf of LM with which you were sever served, 14 correct?¶

15 A lhad--lwasrotifBdlh)tthecdfse 16 in fact, filed.¶

11 Q Bat yogw erved with the case, 18 conies?¶

19 A I tiff that the case was filed.¶

20 et y ere never served with the case, 21¶

22 to the best of my recollection.¶

Okay. What damage did you incur as a goes« of the filing of a complaint with which you were never served?¶

1 A I inclined many legal — much legal fees,¶

2 mem legal fees, in fact, to try to figure cut¶

3 why — what was going on and, in fact, getting 4 pawed to defend the case though I had not yet 5 been served.¶

6 Q Were the allegations In the federal 7 complaint oo behalf of LM any different than the B &legations in the state court ease on behalf of LM?¶

9 A 1 don't recall.¶

10 Q Did you, is fact, engage in any sexual 11 conduct with 1.MT¶

12 A lm sorry, but I'm sum — thc jury is¶

13 going to recognize this is simply meant to harass 14 me, and Ill have to take the Fifth Amendment since 15 your client, Mr. is trying to overturn my 16 prosecution agreement¶

17 Q How many times did you engage in sexual 18 conduct with LM?¶

19 A fm going to have to invoke my Fifth 20 Amendment right again, sir.¶

21 Q Do yon know who LM is?¶

22 A Again I'm going to assen my right.¶

23 MR. KNIGHT: We are going to go off the 24 record and take another break.¶

1 2 3 4 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are going off the record. (Thereupon, a recess was taken al 9:58 a.m.) THE YMEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:00. We are on the record. MR. KNIGHT: Okay. We have asked on several occasions that you ask questions that are relevant to the lawsuit at bar. There have been some questions that were getting to it. You are back into the sexual stuff which we feel is inappropriate, and also relative to the issues that were raised by Mr. Goldberger. As sues, we are going to recess and ask further direction front the court on what is allowable and what is not allowable in this depositioo. MA.SCAROL4: So you are terminating the deposition at this time? MR. KNIGHT: We are recessing the deposition to get direction from the court. SCAROLA: Until when? MR. KNIGHT: We will nod out what the court says. MR. SCAROLA: When? Are you contacting the judge right now?¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KNIGHT: I am not. We are file an appropriate motion and take It to the judge and see w Thank you. MR. SCAROLA: So that the record is clear, it Is my Intention to ask very specific questions aboutevery factual allegation included la every claim brought by Mr. on be f every victim in every case in who i limed that Mr. has euted that claim. I W 10 know about the connection between r.-Epstein and each one of those alleged victims. I want to know about every individual who had information concerning the events that are alleged in those complaints, every individual who was in a position to have possibly had information about the events alleged in those complaints. I want to ask this witness about every person whose deposition was taken and scheduled lo be taken, the relationship of those persons to Mr. Epstein, knowledge that those persons may have with respect to Mr. Epstein's activities with minors, other crimes committed by¶

1 2 3 5 6 7 B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Epstein as part of an ongoing and continuous course of conduct supportive of claims for punitive damages against Mr. Epstein and supportive of RICO claims against him. And had this deposition been permitted to continue, we would have covered each of those areas and substantially more. MR. KNIGHT: Thank you. THE YIDEOGRAPHER: The rime is 10:03. We are going off the record. (Thereupon, the deposition was adjourned al 10:03 a.m.) A Cos¶

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER¶

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD¶

I, TAMMY NESTOR, Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby certify thatl was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing deposition of JEFFREY EPSTEIN, that a review of the transcript was requested, and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes 1 further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am 1 financially interested in the action.¶

Dated this 25th day of January 2012.¶

CERTIFICATE OF OATH¶

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD¶

I, the undersigned authority, certify that JEFFREY EPSTEIN personally appeared before me and was duly sworn.¶

Witness my hand and official seal this 25th day of January 2012.¶

Tammy Nestor, Court Reporter
Notary Public, State of Florida
Commission No.: EE 133933
Commission Exp. Date: 10/23/2015¶

1 ERRATA SHEET
2 DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT
3 ENTER CHANGES ON THIS PAGE
4 In Re: Epstein v [REDACTED]
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
January 25, 2012¶

PAGE	LINE	CHANGE	REASON

21 Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true.¶

22 _____¶

23 DATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶

24
25¶

January 25, 2012
[REDACTED] BURNETT, PA
1395 Brickell Avenue, 14th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
ATTN: CHRISTOPHER E. KNIGHT, ESQUIRE¶

Re: Epstein v [REDACTED]
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Please take notice that on the January 25, 2012, you gave your deposition in the above cause. At that time you did not waive your signature. The transcript is now available for your review.¶

Please call (888) 811-3408 or email production@phippsreporting.com to schedule and appointment between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, for you to have access on your computer to a read-only version of the transcript.¶

If you are a party in this action and your attorney has ordered a copy of this transcript, you may wish to read their copy of the transcript. In that event, please execute the Errata Sheet, which can be found at the back of the transcript and return it to us for distribution to all parties. If you do not read and sign the deposition within thirty (30) days, the original, which has already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be filed with the Clerk of the Court.¶

If you wish to waive your signature now, please sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this letter and return it to us.¶

Very truly yours,¶

TAMMY NESTOR, RPR
Phipps Reporting, Inc.
1615 Forum Place, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
I do hereby waive my signature.¶

A¶

able 20:5 abuse 6:6,9 abusively 17:7,13 18:15,19 19:17 20:12 23:11 access 27:10 ackerman 2:8 4:24 4:24 acted 6:24 7:9 action 16:1 19:18 20:3,12 25:15,16 27:11 activities 13:23 23:24 acts 8:15 addiction 6:3 7:15 addition 15:4 address 5:7,9,15 14:15 adjourn 14:21 adjourned 24:11 adler 20:1 admitted 20:2 advancing 10:7 agreement 15:16 15:20 16:2 21:16 allegation 23:7 allegations 6:11 21:6,8 alleged 23:10,13,16 23:19 allow 14:19 15:24 allowable 22:15,15 allowed 15:23 amended 3:12 16:23 amendment 8: 8:21,25 11:6 15. 15:9 21:14,20 announce 4:13 answer 6:5,8 9:3,6 9:9 11:4,12,15,18 11:21,24 12:3,7 12:19,22 13:2 14:10,13 15:25¶

18:5,6,11 19:8,9 19:11,13 answered 12:10 appearances 2:1 4:14 appeared 26:7 appointment 27:9 appropriate 14:14 23:2 approximately 4:2 area 6:6 10:3 areas 10:1013:9 24:7 arrest 7:25 8:5 12:24 aside 15:19 16:2 asked 12:10 14:24 22:6 asking 10:14 15:12 15:17 asks 18:21 assert 21:22 assist 7:24 15:21 association 4:12 assume 17:16 assumption 17:21 attempts 15:19 atterbury 2:12 attn 27:3 attorney 25:13 27:11,16 attorney :13 rity 6:6 d 25:7 able 27:7 nue 2:10,13 5:18 27:2 B b 3:8 back 9:22 14:8 22:10 27:13 bar 22:8 barnhart 1:16 2:4 basis 13:3,5 19:6 beach 1:1,16,17 2:5¶

2:5,13 4:7,7 5:14 5:19 27:22 behalf 2:2,7 4:18 4:20,22,24 17:3 18:15,20 19:18 20:13 21:7,8 23:9 believe 13:19 14:13 15:1,17 18:3 believes 14:15 best 17:1 20:10,22 beyond 13:14 blank 27:18 bottom 27:18 boulevard 1:16 2:5 4:7 5:9 brad 4:16,16 1:7 17:2,7 17:12,17 18:9,14 18:18 19:17,21 break 14:1 21:24 brickell 2:10 27 brillo 5:20 brought 2 browar burn '•92 1 •'.8 ed 5:2 ails 19:6 care 10:9 case 1:2 15:24 16:24 17:10,12,14 17:15,17,24,25 18:15,19,23 20:15 20:17,19,20 21:4 21:8 23:9 27:5 28:4 cases 17:6 cause 27:6 centre 2:12 certainly 10:21 certificate 25:1 26:1 certify 25:7,12 26:6 cetera 6:11 10:23 change 8:4 28:7¶

changes 28:2 changing 7:24 charges 7:25 chris 4:10 christopher 2:8 4:18 27:3 circuit 1:1,1 claim 12:1,5 23:8 23:11 claims 24:2,4 clear 6:10 23:5 clearlake 2:12 clearly 10:2 clerk 27:16 client 14:16 15:21 21:15 9 :22 ission 26:14 6:14 commit 8:15 committed 23:25 complained 20:6 complaint 3:12 10:4 16:23 17:9 19:22 20:2,5,8,9 20:24 21:7 complaints 20:7 23:16,19 comprehensive 10:12 computer 27:10 concerning 14:25 23:15 conclusion 19:7 conclusions 18:22 conduct 21:11,18 24:2 conducted 4:6 conjunction 19:22 connected 25:15 connection 23:12 consequence 20:24 consider 10:18¶

consistent 6:13¶

consultant 7:24 contacting 22:24 contend 17:7,12 contention 18:4,9 18:14,18 19:16 20:11 continuance 10:5 continue 24:6 continuous 24:1 conversations 4:25 victed 8:9,12 conviction 8:5 12:24 copy 16:21,23 27:12,12 corners 10:4 correct 13:13 17:19 17:25 18:1 20:14 20:18,21 couched 15:1 counsel 4:13,16 7:4 7:9 25:13,15 counseling 7:14,19 counts 8:13 county 1:1 25:4 26:4 couple 14:23 course 24:2 court 1:1 4:9 6:18 10:25 15:14 17:24 17:24 18i15,19 19:18 20:4,12 21:8 22:14,20,23 26:13 27:16 courts 6:16 covered 24:6 crime 8:6,9,11 crimes 23:25 criminal 10:16,19 current 5:7 D d 3:1 damage 20:23¶

damages 24:3¶

darren 2:14 4:22
date 4:1 26:14
28:24
dated 25:17
day 25:17 26:10
days 20:7 27:15
deal 6:18
declare 28:21
defend 21:4
defendant 1:9 2:7
defraud 19:23
denney 1:16 2:4
deposition 1:10 4:3
4:6 10:13 16:5,8
16:22 20:2 22:16
22:18,20 23:21
24:5,11 25:8 27:6
27:15
description 3:11
different 6:16
13:19 21:7
direction 22:14,20
discovery 6:10,14
15:23
discussed 6:14 8:3
12:23 13:22
discussion 9:17
distances 10:24
distribution 27:13
document 16:25
28:21
doing 10:8
dollars 19:24
dont 6:12 10:8,19
17:11,14 18:17,24
21:9
duly 5:2 26:8¶

E
e 2:8 3:1,8 27:3
earlier 14:9,12
east 2:15 5:17
edward 5:8
[REDACTED] 1:7 4:5,16
15:13,18 17:3,7
17:13,17 18:14,18
19:17,21 20:7,11¶

21:15 23:8,10
27:4 28:3
ee 26:14
effort 8:4 15:18
el 5:20
email 27:8
employee 25:13,14
enable 19:23
engage 21:10,17
enter 28:2
entitled 14:16
epstein 1:4,10 3:12
4:4,4,19,21,23,25
5:1,8 10:13 14:25
15:12,16 16:3,24
23:13,23 24:1,3
25:9 26:7 27:4,25
28:3,4,24
epsteins 23:24
errata 27:13 28:1
espirito 2:9
esquire 2:3,8,8,11
2:14 27:3
et 6:11 10:23
evaluation 7:14,19
event 27:12
events 23:15,18
exact 17:8
examination 3:3
5:4
examined 5:3
excuse 5:23 20:1,7
execute 27:13
exhibit 3:11 16:5,8
16:22
exp 26:14¶

F
fact 8:15 12:8,13
15:25 17:24 20:16
21:2,3,10
facts 28:21
factual 23:7
federal 15:14 17:24
18:19 19:17,21
20:4,8,12 21:6
feel 22:11¶

fees 21:1,2
fifth 8:16,20,25
11:6 15:3,9 21:14
21:19
figure 21:2
file 20:2 23:2
filed 15:14 16:1
17:17 19:21 20:5
20:6,7,16,19
27:16
filing 20:24
financially 25:16
find 20:5 22:22
fine 9:21 19:7
finish 18:5,6,11
first 14:23
floor 2:10 27:2
florida 1:1,17 2:5
2:10,13 4:8 9:5,8
13:23 19:24 25:3
26:3,13 27:3,22
foch 5:19,19
following 7:25 8:5
follows 5:3
foregoing 25:8
28:21
form 7:14
forum 27:21
forwarded 27:16
found 27:13
four 10:4
fowler 2:9 27:2
friday 27:10
full 5:6
further 15:18 22:14
25:12¶

G
getting 21:3 22:9
give 5:15
given 15:25
go 9:13,22 10:9,25
13:10 14:1 21:23
goes 13:14
going 6:4 8:20,25
9:16 10:5 13:1
14:1,4,14,20¶

15:24 19:4 20:4
21:3,13,19,22,23
22:1,13 23:1,2
24:10
goldberger 2:11,12
4:20,20 8:16
14:15,22,23 15:8
16:12,15,18 22:12
guilty 12:6,8,13,18
12:21¶

H
h 3:8
hand 26:9
handed 16:21
harass 13:9 21:13
harassing 10:2
13:16
held 9:17
hes 6:7 15:9
homes 5:13
hook 5:9
hours 27:9¶

I
identification 16:9
identified 17:4
ill 6:13 16:7,18
21:14
im 4:16 5:8 6:4
8:20,25 9:25
10:17 13:1 14:14
15:6,24 16:15
17:8 19:4,10,15
21:12,12,19,22
image 7:24 8:4
improper 13:20
inappropriate
22:11
included 23:8
incur 20:23
incurred 21:1
individual 17:3
23:14,17
individually 1:7,7,8
indyke 2:14 4:22
4:22¶

information 23:15
23:18
informed 7:3,8
initials 17:4
instruct 6:4 13:1
instructing 19:9,10
instruction 13:4,25
14:13 15:7
intended 19:2
intention 10:1 23:6
interested 25:16
intimidate 13:17
investors 19:24
20:3,5
invoke 8:16,17,18
8:20,25 21:19
invoking 11:5 15:3
15:9
islands 5:10 9:11
11:3
issue 7:20 14:11
issues 10:3 14:17
14:23 15:13 22:12¶

J
j 1:7
jack 2:3,11 4:15,20
14:22
january 1:12 4:2
25:17 26:10 27:1
27:6 28:5
jeffrey 1:4,10 4:4
4:19,21,23,25 5:1
5:8 16:24 25:9
26:7 27:25 28:4
28:24
[REDACTED] 2:8 4:24
jr 2:8
judge 6:9,13 22:25
23:3
judicial 1:1
jury 21:12¶

K
k 2:14
kennedy 4:11
knight 2:8 4:18,18¶

6:4,22 7:1,6,11,16
7:21 8:1,7 9:12,21
9:25 10:14,20
12:10 13:1,5,7,14
13:16,25 14:9
15:5,6 16:6,17,19
18:5,10,21 19:1,3
19:4,10 21:23
22:6,19,22 23:1
24:8 27:3
know 6:7 10:19
15:13 17:11,14
18:17 21:21 23:12
23:14
knowledge 23:23¶

L11:8 2:8
lakes 1:16 2:5 4:7
lawsuit 6:6 10:7
13:8 14:11 15:14
15:22 22:8¶

lawsuits 18:22
legal 4:11 7:4,9
18:21 19:7 21:1,1
21:2
letter 27:18
line 14:20 15:10,11
28:7
list 10:9
little 10:20
lm 3:12 16:24 17:4
17:14,17 18:16,20
19:18 20:13 21:7
21:8,11,18,21
long 10:24
look 16:7¶

Mm 1:8,13,13 4:3
14:6,7 22:3 24:12
27:9,10
maintain 5:11
manner 12:17
mark 16:4
marked 16:9,22
matter 4:4 12:17,21¶

means 10:6,7
meant 21:13
media 12:24 13:24
15:2
mentioned 14:9
mexico 5:13,18
11:14
miami 2:10 27:3
microphone 16:11
mike 5:24
millions 19:24
mine 16:17
minor 8:14 9:1,7
11:22 12:4,14
minors 6:21,25 7:5
7:10 13:23 23:25
minute 9:14
monday 27:10
motion 23:2¶

Nn 3:1
name 4:15 5:6
27:18
nature 10:16,19
need 18:24
needed 20:2
nestor 1:21 4:9
25:6,19 26:13
27:20
never 20:13,17,20
20:25
new 2:15,15 5:13
5:14,17,17 11:11
11:14
news 12:24 13:24
15:2,2
nonprosecution
15:15,19 16:2
notary 26:13
notes 25:11
notice 27:6
notified 20:15,19¶

Ooath 5:2 26:1
object 19:4¶

objecting 19:6
objection 13:12
15:4 18:21,25
obviously 18:22
occasions 22:7
odds 17:21
official 26:9
10:17
okay 14:22 15:8
16:19 19:1,13
20:23 22:6
ongoing 24:1
ordered 27:12
ordering 27:16
original 27:15
outside 6:5 10:2,3
15:22
overturn 15:15
21:15¶

Pp 27:10
pa 1:16 2:4,9,12
27:2
page 3:3,11 28:2,7
palm 1:1,16,17 2:5
2:5,13 4:7,7 5:13
5:19 27:22
pardon 5:21
paris 5:14,18 11:17
part 24:1
parties 25:13,14
27:14
partner 19:22,25
19:25
partners 19:23
party 15:16 16:3
27:11
penalties 28:21
people 10:24
peoples 10:23
perjury 28:21
permitted 24:5
person 23:21
personally 26:7
persons 23:22,23
phipps 4:10,12¶

27:21
phippsreporting
27:9
phone 16:10
place 27:21
plaintiff 1:5 2:2
plaintiffs 16:23
plan 10:9
planning 10:11,14
plaza 2:9
plead 12:8,13
please 4:13 5:6,16
9:20 16:4,14
18:11 19:13 27:6
27:8,12,17
pled 12:6,18,21
plenty 13:9
pocket 16:11
position 23:17
possibly 23:18
prefer 8:18
preference 6:21,24
7:4,10
prepared 21:4
present 4:17
presently 5:12
pretty 6:9
previously 6:14
prior 6:11,17
privilege 8:17,19
privileges 15:3,9
probably 10:18
proceed 10:20
process 6:6,9
procuring 8:14
production 27:9
professional 25:6
prosecuted 17:7,13
18:15,19 19:17
20:12 23:11
prosecution 21:16
prostitute 11:25
prostitution 8:13
8:14,24 9:2,5,8,11
11:2,10,13,16,19
11:23 12:1,5,9,14
12:17,21¶

public 7:24 8:4
26:13
punitive 24:3
purpose 15:20
put 14:17 16:13¶

Qquestion 6:5 13:2
14:12 19:14
questioning 15:10
15:11
questions 6:8 10:1
10:2,5,15 14:10
14:19,24 15:4,18
15:25 22:7,9 23:7
quick 14:1
quit 10:25¶

Rraised 15:4 18:23
22:12
ranch 5:18
read 27:12,15
28:21
readonly 27:10
real 20:3
realm 15:23
reason 13:8 28:7
reasonable 13:10
reasons 13:19
recall 17:2 21:9
received 7:13,18
recess 14:5 22:2,13
recessing 22:19
recognize 21:13
recollection 17:1
17:20,23 20:10,22
record 4:14 9:13,16
9:18,23 14:2,4,8
14:18 21:24 22:1
22:5 23:5 24:10
25:10
red 5:9
regarding 6:10,14
registered 25:6
relationship 23:22
relative 6:8,10 10:3¶

14:12 22:11 25:12	13:15,21 14:24	south 2:13 19:24	time 4:2 6:12,12	<b>W</b>
25:14	16:4,20 18:8,13	speaking 18:25	9:15 10:22 11:20	waive 27:7,17,23
relevancy 13:13,14	18:24 19:2,5,12	specific 17:15 23:6	11:23 14:3,7,17	want 6:8 14:17
relevant 14:10 22:8	22:17,21,24 23:5	stand 9:24	18:10 21:25 22:4	17:16 18:10 23:12
repeat 19:15	schedule 27:9	state 5:6 9:5,8	22:18 24:9 27:6	23:14,20
report 25:8	scheduled 23:21	13:23 17:24 18:15	times 8:23 9:1,4,7	waste 6:12
reported 1:21	schedules 10:23	21:8 25:3 26:3,13	9:10 21:17	way 5:20 16:15
reporter 4:9 12:24	scott 1:7 19:22,25	stated 28:21	todays 4:1	weiss 2:12
13:24 25:1,7	seal 26:9	stenographic 25:11	total 15:11	west 1:17 2:5,13
26:13	second 9:13	stuff 22:10	totally 15:22	4:7 27:22
reporters 15:2	see 10:21 23:3	styled 16:24	transcript 25:9,10	whats 16:21
reporting 4:10,12	seeking 15:15	substantially 24:7	27:7,10,12,12,13	[REDACTED] 2:9 27:2
27:21	seen 16:25	sued 17:2	28:2	wish 27:12,17
12:25 13:24	served 20:9,13,17	suite 2:12 27:21	traveled 10:24	withdrawing 15:6
requested 25:10	20:20,25 21:5	supportive 24:2,4	treatment 7:14,19	witness 5:2,22 8:20
residence 5:7,9	20:20,25 21:5	sure 10:17 17:8	true 25:10 28:22	10:6 12:11 13:18
residences 5:11	serves 15:20	stuff 22:10	truly 27:19	18:7,12 19:3
residences 5:11	services 4:11 7:23	styled 16:24	try 21:2	23:20 26:9
respect 12:1,5	set 15:19 16:1	substantially 24:7	trying 21:15	witness 19:8
23:24	sexrelated 7:20,25	suite 2:12 27:21	two 8:13 20:7	wondering 9:25
retained 7:23	8:6 12:23 13:22	supportive 24:2,4		wont 10:8
return 27:13,18	15:12	sure 10:17 17:8		words 20:4
review 25:9 27:7	7:4,9,15 10:15,19	sworn 5:2 26:8		write 28:2
rico 24:4	21:10,17 22:10
right 8:21,25 11:8	sheet 27:13 28:1			<b>X</b>
15:8 18:2,7 21:20	shipley 1:16 2:4			x 3:1,8
21:22 22:25	show 20:3
road 5:18	shut 16:18			<b>Y</b>
rothstein 1:7 19:23	side 16:14			york 2:15,15 5:14
19:25 20:1,6	sign 27:15,17			5:17 11:11
rothsteins 20:4	signature 27:7,17
rpr 1:21 25:19	27:23			<b>Z</b>
27:20	simply 15:24 21:13			zorro 5:18
rra 19:23	sir 5:21 12:11 17:5
rulings 6:17	19:16,19 21:20			<b>0</b>
<b>S</b>	solicited 8:23 9:1,4	terminating 22:17	video 4:11	00 22:4 27:9,9
s 1:5,9 3:8	9:7,10 11:2,10,13	testified 5:3	videographer 4:1	03 1:13 24:9,12
santo 2:9	11:16,19,22,25	thank 9:23 16:19	4:10 5:21,23 9:15
says 22:23	12:4,16,20	23:4 24:8	9:24 14:3,7 16:10
scarola 1:16 2:3,4	soliciting 8:13 12:9	thanks 5:24	16:13 21:25 22:4
3:4 4:15,15 5:5	12:14	thats 6:5 17:19	24:9
6:1,15,19,23 7:2,7	someones 16:10	18:3,7 19:2,7	videotaped 1:10
7:12,17,22 8:2,8	soon 16:6	things 10:8	4:3
8:22 9:19,22	soon 16:6	think 15:20,22	virgin 5:10 9:11
10:11,17 11:1,9	sorry 18:17 19:15	third 3:12 16:23	11:3
12:12 13:3,6,12	21:12	thirty 27:15	vs 1:6
	sought 7:13,18	thorough 10:12

14th 2:10 27:2
15th 1:1
16 3:12
1615 27:21¶

2¶

2012 1:12 4:2 25:17
26:10 27:1,6 28:5
2015 26:14
2139 1:16 2:5 4:6
22 5:18
23 26:14
234 20:8
234count 19:21
25 1:12 4:2 27:1,6
28:5
250 2:13
25th 25:17 26:9¶

3¶

30 14:3 27:15
301 2:15
33131 2:10 27:3
33401 2:13 27:22
33409 1:17 2:5
34 1:13 4:3
358 5:19
39 9:15¶

4¶

43:4 27:9
40 14:4
43 14:6¶

5¶

50 14:7
500 27:21
502009ca040800...
1:2 27:5 28:4
58 21:25 22:3¶

6¶

6100 5:9
66th 2:15¶

7¶

71st 5:17¶

8¶

8113408 27:8
888 27:8¶

9¶

9 1:13 4:3 5:17 9:15
14:3,4,6,7 21:25
22:3 27:9¶

NOTA CERTIFIED COPY¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG Complex Litigation, Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1201¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff,
-vs- VOLUME I OF II¶

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

Defendants.¶

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE¶

Tuesday, March 23, 20010
10:00 - 5:07 p.m.¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes, Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

Reported By:
Cynthia [REDACTED] RPR, FPR
Notary Public, State of Florida
Prose Court Reporting
Job No.: 1333¶

1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Plaintiff:
3 ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE
4 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP
5 303 Banyan Boulevard
6 Suite 400
7 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
8 Phone: 561.842.2820¶

9 and
10 JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
11 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
12 250 Australian Avenue South
13 Suite 1400
14 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5012
15 Phone: 561.659.8300¶

16 and
17 On behalf of the Plaintiff:
18 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
19 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
20 Hauser 520
21 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
22 Phone: 617.496.2020
23 On behalf of the Defendant:
24 JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
25 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA,
26 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
27 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
28 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
29 Phone: 561.686.6300¶

30 ALSO PRESENT:
31 Jeffrey Epstein
32 [REDACTED] Kozak, Videographer
33 Prose Reporting Services¶

1 INDEX
2 ---
3 EXAMINATION DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT
4 [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE
5 BY MR. CRITTON 5¶

6 EXHIBITS
7 ---
8 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
9 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 211
10 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
11 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 COMPLAINT 239
12 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 JULY 22, 2009 276
13 FACSIMILE
14 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 211
15 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
16 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 COMPLAINT 239
17 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 JULY 22, 2009 276
18 FACSIMILE
19 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 211
20 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
21 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 COMPLAINT 239
22 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 JULY 22, 2009 276
23 FACSIMILE
24 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 211
25 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 239
26 PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 JULY 22, 2009 276¶

1 PROCEEDINGS
2 ---
3 Deposition taken before Cynthia [REDACTED],
4 Registered Professional Reporter and Florida
5 Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for
6 the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause.
7 ---
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on video
9 record. This is Media Number One in the
10 videotaped deposition of [REDACTED] in the
11 matter of Jeffrey Epstein versus Scott
12 Rothstein, [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], and L.M.
13 Today is Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010 at
14 10:00 a.m. We're here in the law offices
15 of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart &
16 Shipley, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard,
17 West Palm Beach, Florida.
18 My name is Joe Kozak. I am the
19 videographer. The court reporter is Cindy
20 [REDACTED] from Prose, Prose Court Reporting
21 Agency.
22 Will counsel please introduce
23 yourselves, and then the court reporter
24 will swear in the witnesses.
25 MR. CRITTON: Bob Critton on behalf of the¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein. MR. GOLDBERG: Jack Goldberger on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein. MR. DERSHOWITZ: Alan Dershowitz on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, of counsel. MIt SCAROLA: The record should reflect that Mr. Epstein is also personally present. My name is Jack Scarola. I am counsel on behalf of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Brad Thereupon, J. ESQUIRE) having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: Yes. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Would you please tell us your Ml name and home your home address. A. James ,1109Northeast Second Street, Hallandale Beach, Florida, 33009. Q. Date of birth, please. A. Q. Mr. M, have you ever had your deposition taken before?¶

1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. But you've counseled, you' 3 obviously taken a number of depositio 4 Plaintiff and as a Defendant. You'r 5 all the rules? 6 A. I know the rules. 7 Q. All right. Again if l 8 you don't understand, if you 9 want me to rephr I will 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. S 12 knows You can skip the 13 prelim' 14 . ITTON: Is that a form objection? 15 CAROLA: No. 16 MR. CRITTON: Just a talk. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Ws a, it's a request that 18 you not waste our time. 19 MR. CRITTON: I am not wasting your time. 20 And if we hadn't gone through that, we would 21 have been done with them, Jack. 22 BY MR. CRITTON: 23 Q. Mr. are you currently employed? 2 4 A. Yes. 25 Q. And by whom are you currently employed? ou a question ask me or if you happy to do that.¶

1 A. I don't understand the question. 2 Q. For whom do you work at the current time? 3 Are you an employee? 4 A. I am a panne!: in the law firm of 5 Jaffe, Weissing. , Fistos & Lehrman. 6 Q. Is that a professional association? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And you said you're a partner. Do you 9 have your own P.A. or is the only the -- what 10 was the second name, Jaffe? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. And I will refer to it as Earmer, Jaffe, 13 if that's all right with you. I, Jaffe 14 itself a P.A.; that is, are yQ iership of 15 P.A.'s? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you h otvn professional 18 association 19 A. Yes 20 0 a kay. at's it called? 21 Office of Brad, LLC. 22 u are the sole member of that LLC? 23 A es. 2 And then your LLC is a partner of the, Jaffe firm? ti Page 8¶

1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And do you hold yourself out to the public 3 as being a partner of that firm; that is you 4 individually? 5 A. What do you mean by hold myself out to the 6 public? 7 Q. If I got your letter would your letter 8 say, if I received a letter from you would it say 9 Brad, partner, or something to that effect? 10 A. I don't think so. 11 Q. Okay. What does your card say? Do you 12 have a business card? 13 A. I do. 14 Q. Okay. What does your business card-- 15 A. Attorney. 16 Q. -- reflect? And when you introduce 17 yourself to clients or other attorneys for the first 18 occasion. do you introduce yourself as a partner of 19 that firm if asked? 20 A. If asked are you a partner; is that your 21 question? 22 Q. Correct. 23 A. Would I say yes? The answer is yes. 24 Q. When did you start -- I want to strike 25 that. Do you consider yourself an employee of the¶

1 partnership?¶

2 A. What do you mean by that?¶

3 Q. Do you understand what an employee is?¶

4 A. I work for the firm.¶

5 Q. You are certainly not —¶

6 A. I am employed there, so, yes.¶

7 Q. When did you start your association with 8 the Farmer, Jaffe firm?¶

9 A. Sometime during the month of November, 2009.¶

10 Q. And is that when the firm was incorporated 11 as a professional association?¶

12 A. I believe so.¶

13 Q. The attorneys who are in the current firm, 14 are they all former Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler¶

15 attorneys; that is, the professional staff?¶

16 A. Yes.¶

17 Q. Is there anyone — Let me strike that.¶

18 Do you have paralegals as well that 19 work there?¶

20 A. Yes.¶

21 Q. Are any of the paralegals former, and if I¶

22 refer to Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler as RRA, or RRA, 23 is that all right with you?¶

24 A. I understand what you mean.¶

25 Q. Are there any other, are any of the¶

1 paralegals that are currently employed by 2 Jaffe in any capacity whether they are in 3 contractors -- well, let me strike that.¶

4 As employee's, I probabl 5 this question: Does the firm, Farmer, Jaffe, ave 6 employees --¶

7 A. Yes.¶

8 Q. -- separate and apart e partners?¶

9 A. Yes.¶

10 Q. And they ly employed by the 11 P.A., comae¶

12 A. C rr¶

13 Q. have any paralegals that 14 came the RRA firm, RRA?¶

15 A. %s.¶

16 Q. Who are they?¶

17 A. Maria and Beth.¶

18 Q. Does Maria have a last name?¶

19 A. Yes.¶

20 Q. What is it, please?¶

21 A. I believe it's pronounced Kelljian.¶

22 Q. Can you spell it?¶

23 A. I can give it my best shot, K-E-L-L-J-1-A-N.¶

24 Q. And Beth's last name is what, please?¶

25 A. Williamson.¶

1 2 Q. She's your current secretary/paralegal, or do you have a secretary as well?¶

3 A. I don't understand your question.¶

4 5 Q. Do you have -- is Beth Williamson your paralegal?¶

6 7 A. She's a paralegal at the law firm of Jaffe, Weissing, , Fistos & Lehrman.¶

B Q. Does she primarily work for you?¶

10 Q. Do you have a secretary as well?¶

11 A. The law firm? Yes.¶

12 13 Q. The secretary who works rimarily for you --¶

14 A. No.¶

15 16 Q. You just use w is av lable from a secretary standpoi¶

17 A. No.¶

18 19 Q. Who ly use for secretary services?¶

20 21 A. ere ody who could fall into the whol primarily use.¶

22 23 Williamson, who, by whom, who, who was ey at RRA with whom she primarily worked?¶

A. No.¶

. I believe it was several attorneys, and I¶

't tell you who the attorneys were that she worked¶

1 for or with.¶

2 Q. Did she work with you at all at RRA?¶

3 A. In some limited capacity, maybe.¶

4 Q. Did she ever work on any of the -- you S have three cases that you ever filed -- or let me 6 strike that.¶

7 There are three cases that are in 8 existence at the current time. One is Jane Doe 9 versus Mr. Epstein which is, is a federal court case 10 and the Plaintiffs name is Jane Doe. That is one 11 of your cases, correct?¶

12 A. Correct.¶

13 Q. Or one of the firm's cases at the current 14 time?¶

15 A. Correct.¶

16 Q. There is another case versus L.M. Versus¶

17 Jeffrey Epstein and a third called E.W. versus 18 Jeffrey Epstein, correct?¶

19 A. Yes.¶

20 Q. And as a result all three of those cases 21 currently now are firm cases, the Farmer, Jaffe firm 22 cases?¶

23 A. Yes.¶

24 Q. Did Mrs. Williamson work on any of those 25 cases?¶

1 A. In what time period? What's your question?¶

2 Q. I'm sorry. During the time that you were 3 associated with RRA, did Mrs. Williamson work on 4 those cases?¶

5 A. Without you needing to ask 20 different 6 questions to get to your answer, I will tell you her 7 involvement was that after federal motions were drafted, 8 she was the person to literally file the motion. That 9 is her only involvement with the cases while at RRA 10 Q. She basically filed them through the Pacer 11 system?¶

12 A. Exactly.¶

13 Q. Prior to you working at Jaffe by 14 whom were you employed? And by employed I mean in, 15 in a broad sense. You could have been an 16 independent contractor. You could have been a 17 partner. You could have been an employee.¶

18 A. The law flint of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.¶

19 Q. When did you start working for RRA?¶

20 A. I believe April of 2009.¶

21 Q. Beginning of April?¶

22 A. Yes.¶

23 Q. I saw a pleading that was filed yesterday¶

24 and it was either E.M., I am sorry, L.M. or E.W. 25 that looked like there was a change of —I'm sorry,¶

1 2 3 4 notice of appearance or something by RRA s d that, in any way, if I asked you to assum th that's correct, would that refresh your, o that it may have been at the end o¶

5 A. I don't understand that qu¶

6 Q. I saw a pleading that was¶

7 A. Yesterday you sai¶

8 9 10 11 12 Q. — a paper that was was looking at a pleading file either . or L.M., and I saw a paper tha basically a notice of appearance If of RRA And it looked like it was dat arch 30 of 2009.¶

13 A. O¶

14 15 16 ssible that you started your association with RRA at an earlier date than April of '09?¶

17 18 19 A. Assuming that what you said is true, if that document says that, then it's possible that is an accurate reflection of when I began.¶

20 21 22 Q. Did you start working with RRA before you filed any documents representing that RRA or that you had now an affiliation with RRA?¶

23 A. No.¶

24 25 Q. Where the -- again, I don't remember, whether there was a notice of additional counsel or 1 2 3 substitution of counsel. Did you, were the substitution of counsel's filed the exact date that you started with RRA?¶

4 A. I don't remember.¶

5 6 Q. When did your association with RRA terminate or end?¶

7 8 A. The end of October 2009 or the beginning of November 2009.¶

9 10 Q. And how did it terminate? How did your relationship with RRA terminate?¶

11 A. The firm closed.¶

12 13 Q. Did you get, notification when you say closed, meaning what?¶

14 15 16 A. Meaning what eve is entire room knows is that the firm rn o crating to no longer operating.¶

17 18 19 20 21 Q. And how did you r that RRA n ve notice; that is, of notice that told you efunct firm? Did you receive not in bankruptcy? What, if d you receive?¶

22 dn't receive anything.¶

23 And then how did your relationship with end?¶

S 5¶

A. Came to work on a Monday morning, and there¶

was a meeting that was held informing all the employees including myself that the firm no longer was financially able to survive and therefore would be immediately closing down.¶

Q. Who was the spokesperson at the meeting, the main individual who advised those assembled in the room that that's what was going to occur?¶

A. I don't remember.¶

Q. Was it did Rosenfeldt speak at all at that meeting?¶

A. 1,1 can't remember.¶

Q. Do you remember the date of the meeting?¶

A. I remember that it was a Monday.¶

Q. Do you remember it being in October or November?¶

A. Either the very end of October or the very beginning of November.¶

Q. Did anyone -- well, let me strike that.¶

Do you remember whether the person — let me strike that.¶

At the meeting who was present, and I don't mean individual names. Who did it, by groups, who did it include?¶

A. The meeting was held in a cafeteria type room in the building where RRA maintained its offices. And¶

1 the room was completely full to capacity with as many 2 employees of the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt Adler firm as 3 were in attendance at work that day.¶

4 Q. And included lawyers, paralegals, support 5 staff, investigators?¶

6 A. Literally — 7 Q. -- everyone, I mean everyone who obviously 8 showed up at the meeting?¶

9 A. I don't know.¶

10 Q. Did you see other lawyers there?¶

11 A. Yes.¶

12 Q. Did you see staff there?¶

13 A. Yes.¶

14 Q. Did you see paralegals there?¶

15 A. Yes.¶

16 Q. Did you see investigators there?¶

17 A. I can't necessarily remember whether or not I 18 saw investor — investigators there.¶

19 Q. And did more than one person speak at the 20 meeting?¶

21 A. I don't remember.¶

22 Q. Okay. What else were you advised at the 23 meeting, if anything?¶

24 A. It was -- I stayed for very little of that 25 meeting. I don't know what was advised to others, but¶

1 what I heard was, firm is closing down. That's all 2 needed to hear and I left.¶

3 Q. Did you subsequent -- wcii, let me 4 that. Did you, were you able to gain, g 5 to the building that day? I am son-y,¶

6 your, to the offices of the Rothstein fi ay?¶

7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And were you able to aFt ty of your 9 files or your e-mail at¶

10 A. What time? 11 Q. That onday that you were 12 advised that t as shutting down.¶

13 A. Yes.¶

19 you able to print documents? 15 Well, let rike that. Were you able to take 16 documents relating to matters on which you worked 17 from the firm?¶

18 A. What do you mean by was I able to?¶

19 Q. Were you able to access and take with you 20 documents that related to files on which you were 21 working the preceding Friday when you were at RRA?¶

22 A. I believe so.¶

23 Q. Did you take, did you actually remove¶

24 documents, papers that were related to files that 25 you had on which you were working from RRA that day? 1 A. I don't believe so.¶

2 Q. Okay. Was anyone preventing you from 3 taking anything?¶

4 A. No.¶

5 Q. Okay. Did you print out any documentation 6 from your server or from the firrn's server that day 7 to take with you?¶

8 A. Not that I recall.¶

9 Q. Do you recall taking anything from 10 RRA'office that day, that day being that same 11 Monday?¶

12 A. No.¶

13 Q. Obviously Scott Rothstgin was not there?¶

14 A. Correct.¶

15 Q. Have you ever, ei iise me, have you 16 ever seen Mr. Rot " ce that Monday at the 17 meeting?¶

18 A. Wha& have I seen him?¶

19 Q. Set' person, I'm sorry.¶

20 A. No.¶

21 y, have you spoken with him at any time 22 nday meeting at which time you were 23 i5 at the firm was shutting down?¶

24 No.¶

Q. Have you spoken on any, with anyone on his¶

41\¶

1 behalf; that is, who purports to represent¶

2 Mr. Rothstein since you left the firm that day?¶

3 A. No.¶

4 Q. Do you know Mr. Nurik?¶

5 A. Yes.¶

6 7 Q. Do you recog -- are you aware that he represents Mr. Rothstein?¶

9 10 Q. Okay. Have you spoken with him since that Monday?¶

11 12 13 14 15 A. He called me on a morning before a hearing to ask me where Judge courtroom was. And I told him, and that was the extent of that conversation. Otherwise, I have had zero communication with Marc Nurik.¶

16 17 18 19 20 Q. With regard to the firm being advised that the firm was shutting down on that Monday, did you subsequently return to the firm's offices? Let me strike that. How long did you stay at the firm that day?¶

21 A. I don't remember.¶

22 Q. Did you stay all day?¶

23 A. I believe so.¶

24 Q. Were you able to work on your files?¶

25 A. I don't understand the question.¶

A. Yes.¶

1 Q. Were you able to do legal work on the 2 matters that wherein you represent individuals? 3 A. Was I able to? Yes, I was physically able to 4 do that.¶

5 Q. Did you work on legal matters that day?¶

6 A. No.¶

7 Q. Did you subsequently, after that date, did 8 you return to the RRA offices?¶

9 A. Yes.¶

10 Q. And where are those offices or where were 11 those offices located?¶

12 A. Las Olas.¶

13 Q. The address, please?¶

14 A. I don't remember.¶

15 Q. With regard to the --¶

16 A. 401.¶

17 Q. Las Olas?¶

18 A. (Witness nods head.)¶

19 Q. Did you, did you after that Monday did you 20 return to the offices at 401 Las Olas, the RRA 21 offices?¶

22 A. Yes.¶

23 Q. And did you return every day thereafter 24 for a period of time?¶

25 A. No.¶

1 Q. Was there a point in time that you wer 2 prevented from entering your office or theme 3 of RRA?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

5 Q. At what point in time were pr led¶

6 from going into the offices?¶

7 A. I don't remember.¶

8 Q. How many da s were e to arress the 9 offices before you rye ed?¶

10 A. I don't re¶

11 Q. You ether it was a day or 12 three day s that you were allowed to go 13 into t¶

14 A. e period of time that I was able to go into 15 the office ncompasscs all of those things that you just 16 said, one day, three days, five days, yes. I can 17 definitely say with certainty I was able to do that.¶

18 Q. During the month of October were you¶

19 allowed to go into the office more than ten days?¶

20 A. Yes.¶

21 Q. Did they put -- well, let me strike that.¶

22 Did someone put restrictions on what your access was 23 to the office, the RRA office?¶

24 A. Yes.¶

25 Q. Okay. Who put the restrictions on the¶

1 entry to the office?¶

2 A. I don't know.¶

3 4 Q. Well, who would, who would monitor whether you came in or couldn't go into the office?¶

5 A. I don't know.¶

6 Q. Was there someone there?¶

7 A. Was there someone where?¶

8 9 10 11 12 Q. The impression I got is that there was some limitation on your ability to access the RRA offices after the Monday at which time you were advised that the firm was shutting down. Did I misunderstand you?¶

13 A. No, that's correct.¶

14 15 16 Q. Okay. Who then, or what, if it was an entity, pla actions on your access to RRA off¶

17 A. 1 don't¶

18 19 20 Q. Whelfyou go to the office -- well, let me strik let e t fier how many days -- well,¶

21 22 23 ti e very day, the same day that you ed that the office was closing down, were y individuals that were monitoring what, if ing, was to be removed or not removed from the ffice, like a security force, Broward County¶

1 Police, U.S. Marshals.¶

2 A. From my recollection there were at some point 3 in time, there were people in the office monitoring 4 activity in the office.¶

5 Q. Was that the first week after the Monday?¶

6 A. I don't recall.¶

7 Q. Did you ever, did you receive any 8 guidelines either at the Monday meeting or 9 thereafter as to what you could or could not remove 10 from the file, from the, I'm sorry from the RRA 11 offices?¶

12 A. I believe so.¶

13 Q. And who put those guidelines out, do you 14 recall?¶

15 A. No.¶

16 Q. Were they in a written form?¶

17 A. No.¶

18 Q. Okay. Was given in what form, how did you 19 learn what you could and could not take from the 20 office?¶

21 A. More rumor than anything else is what I 22 remember.¶

23 Q. Did you discuss that with other 24 individuals or other attorneys who were working at 25 RRA?¶

1 A. Possibly. 2 Q. Did you ever attempt to remove something 3 from the office of the RRA offices and someone 4 prevented you? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you ever — and when I say remove1 7 mean in the sense of physically remove; that is, B take out boxes or take out files or something of 9 that nature. 10 A. I understand the definition of remove. 11 Q. With regard to, there were also, I 12 understand you had an e-mail server at the office? 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. Is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And I have seen something, there is 17 something that's called Qtask. Are you familiar 18 with Qtask? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what do you understand Qtask or what 21 did you understand that Qtask did; that is, as an 22 electronic service? 23 A. A web based network to store files and other 24 materials. 25 Q. In terms of electronic storage, or Pageti¶

• 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 data at the RRA firm, in addition to excuse me, the e-mail server was and Qtas there anything else from an electronic communication means through

  • A. Yes.
  • Q. What else was there?
  • A. That stored electron aterials?
  • Q. Right, or that you co municate with someone else eithe n 'de or t of the firm. You had the server, rver. You had Qtask. What else did you
  • A. An'd sate with others, e-mail and Qtask. ut within the confines of the firm, l e another electronic mail system or electroni system either for storage or for communication?
  • A. To the best of my recollection, none for communication. Storage, yes. There were electronic paperless storage case management systems in place.
  • Q. And with regard to the electronic case management system, were your files, including the three cases involving Mr. Epstein, were those cases on the electronic case management system?
    • A. Yes.
    • Q. And could you access the electronic case

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 management system; that is, did you utilize the software that was available?

  • A. Yes.
  • Q. And had you ever used a system like that before you came to the RRA firrn, RRA?
    • A. I don't understand.
  • Q. Okay. Had you ever used an electronic case management software system before you came to RRA?
    • A. Yes.
  • Q. Was yours the system that you had used before was that were you able t integrate that with RRA, with the RRA file or s st when you got there, or did your files have to e new RRA system?
    • A. The latter.
  • Q. In addle htid the e-mail server, Qtask, and a management system. Was there any er ty of electronic storage or system that av for communication or storage at that I recall.
  • 9. ith regard to the e-mail system, well, ith regard to the e-mail system, Qtask, and electronic case management, did you require, was

1 there a password required to use or access each one? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Was there a password required to use any 4 of the three? 5 A. I don't believe so. 6 Q. As I saw in an order that with the Qtask 7 system that there was some sort of access code that 8 was required to get into Qtask. 9 A. I saw that too. 10 Q. Did you ever have, did you ever have such 11 a code or a password with regard to Qtask? 12 A. I don't remember. 13 Q. Has the receiver and/or it's, Mr. Seton or 14 his attorneys asked for you to provide any passwords 15 or information to access any of your files? 16 A. I don't think so. 17 Q. Do you understand that you have a 18 requirement or you're required to give the password 19 if requested by Mr. Seton? 20 A. I don't know the password to give to anybody. 21 I never knew there was a password. 22 Q. Did you -- 23 A. I don't believe. 24 Q. Did you use Qtask? 25 A. I have used Qtask.¶

1 Q. With regard to your, the files 2 specifically, specifically the -- well, let me 3 strike that. During the time you were at RRA, of 4 the three files, Jane Doe, L.M., and E.W. or in 5 addition to those three files, did you represent any 6 other individuals who were potential claimants 7 against Mr. Epstein?¶

8 A. I don't believe so.¶

9 Q. All right. I received notification from 10 you as to a Ms. N.R.?¶

11 A. N.R.¶

12 Q. N.R. and Ms. D.F. I believe is her name?¶

13 A. Correct.¶

14 Q. Were either of those individuals, had 15 either of those individuals contacted you prior to 16 leaving the RRA firm?¶

1.7 A. I don't believe so.¶

18 Q. Is it your testimony then that none, 19 neither Ms. N.R. nor Ms. D.F. would have had a fee 20 agreement or representation agreement with the RRA 21 firm because they hadn't contacted you prior to your 22 departure from that firm; is that correct?¶

23 A. I'm not sure.¶

24 Q. Is it possible that Ms., either Ms. N.R. 25 or Ms. D.F. contacted you before you left the RRA¶

1 fum but you just didn't sign than up before you 2 left?¶

3 4 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, calls speculation.¶

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.¶

6 BY MR. CRJ7TON:¶

7 8 9 10 11 12 Q. Is there a reason that signed them up during the tim let me strike that. prior to that Mo ERA firm leave th uld not have ere with or osion, prior, you were advised that the had you made any plans to the RRA firm?¶

13 A.¶

14 15 16 17 Q. ad you discussed with any other attorneys departing from RRA or the RRA firm prior to that Monday meeting at which time you were advised that the firm was shutting down?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 20 21 22 Q. You indicated ifs possible that Ms. N.R. Or have contacted you prior to your departure or prior to that Monday meeting. What makes you believe that?¶

23 24 25 A. I don't remember exactly the timing of any communications between myself and Ms. D.F. or Ms. Nit And it seems to me that it was around the time period¶

1 2 3 either just before or just after I do believe I spoke with one or maybe both of them on at least one occasion before the disbandment of RRA¶

4 5 6 7 8 And I know for a fact I signed each one of the clients up after the disbandment of RRA I can't tell you with any degree of certainty whether they signed a fee agreement with RRA prior to the disbandment¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 Q. Have you been able to do any transfers of your, of — let me strike that. With regard to the e-mail server at RRA, have you had rreasion to access that since that Monday; t a is, the Monday meeting that you referred to i er late October or early November of '091¶

15 A. Yes.¶

16 17 18 19 Q. All right. at some point did fu e-mail that, removed u had full access, access to all of your t least, that you had not again.¶

20 21 22 Unfit! l e-mail server you, you have obviously, to delete what you, what you meet?¶

23 As do you.¶

ti As do I, right. And were you using like a icrosoft Outlook program?¶

1 A. I don't remember.¶

2 Q. Okay.¶

3 A. I am now.¶

4 Q. Well, with the program that you did have, 5 could you delete it and then you would have to go 6 into the delete it and further delete it to clean it 7 out?¶

8 A. I don't remember.¶

9 Q. You don't remember back to October or 10 September of '09 at this point?¶

11 A. That's just not what 1 do. I mean, I don't 12 just delete e-mails. So I don't know what you had to 13 do. You take me for somebody more e-mail savvy than I 14 am about that.¶

15 Q. Do you basically save all your c-mails or 16 had you in the past when you were at RRA?¶

17 A. I don't intentionally save or delete. They 18 are just there.¶

19 Q. And when you, when you, at some point 20 after the Monday meeting, were you able to transfer 21 whatever e-mails you had from RRA to your current 22 program?¶

23 A. At Jaffe, Weissing?¶

24 Q. Correct.¶

25 A. No.¶

1 Q. Were you at some point given access to all 2 your e-mails so it could be downloaded either on a 3 disk, hard disc, floppy disk, or some other storage 4 medium so that you had arrPCS to all your prior S e-mails when you were at RRA?¶

6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Did you ever make that request to someone, B either the receiver or anyone else associated with 9 RRA?¶

10 A. I don't remember if I made that request. 11 Q. I thought you indicated earlier, 12 Mr. , that you had access to some of your 13 e-mails.¶

14 A. I had access to all of my e-mails on that 15 Monday of the meeting, on the next day, on that Tuesday, 16 right, the immediately following the meeting. 32:46 at 17 some point in time it was cutoff and since that time, 18 when it was cutoff, I don't believe I have ever had 19 access back to my entire e-mail system.¶

20 Q. Okay. Have you had access to portions of 21 your e-mail system?¶

22 A. Not that I remember.¶

23 Q. Have you attempted to obtain access or 24 requested that you obtain access or information from 25 your e-mail, from the RRA e-mail server?¶

1 2 3 4 5 A. I don't remember. Q. You say you don't remember. Woul have been a reason that you either req didn't request access to your prior e say prior I mean at RRA¶

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A. Usually you read all of your shouldn't be anything that I there are some e-mails that yd around. So there m have and there of read. However, d like to keep mason for me to have requested. HoweScr n't believe I was ever granted access to is, and I can't specifically rernembe the e-mails.¶

13 14 15 16 Q. ith in the e-mails you would have corresp d with or communicated with people outside of firm and as well as people within the firm, true?¶

17 18 19 20 A. Ever, yes. Q. During the time you were RRA A. Did I ever communicate with somebody outside? I communicated with you.¶

21 22 Q. Correct. A. So you know that to be true. Yeah, of course.¶

23 24 25 Q. I know that to be true. And my question is as well within the server or e-mail system with RRA, did you ever also communicate with other¶

1 2 paralegals, other staff at RRA? A. Yes.¶

3 4 5 6 Q. And would you see, receive, if it was something from one of the other partners at RRA would you receive; that is, did you get firm-wide e-mails from time to time about specific topics?¶

7 8 9 10 11 12 A. Yes. Q. All right. When you, during the time that you went back to RRA, did you printout, and up until the time you were denied access to the c-mail server, did you ever print, printout any e-mails or transfer any e-mails that you cyp recall?¶

13 14 15 16 A. Not that I can recall Q. All right. With system, have you been able to use Qtask that' Monday have you •n any fashion?¶

17 18 19 20 21 A. What Q. Ha to look to pull • y that? ble to access Qtask either was there or in the alternative m so that you could printout from Qtask?¶

22 on't know. Probably.¶

23 ti Okay. Have you attempted since that day -- well, after that Monday meeting -- let me strike that.¶

1 Since the meeting that occurred on 2 that Monday at which time you were advised the firm 3 was shutting down, have you accessed Qtask for any 4 reason?¶

5 A. I don't believe so. 6 Q. What kind of — you said, you described 7 earlier that Qtask was a web based network of files 8 for files and other materials. And in what fashion 9 did you use Qtask during the time you were with RBA, 10 RRA?¶

11 A. Qtask is a project centric web-based program. 12 So projects could be created. The project would 13 normally be a case, and that case discussed with lawyers 14 the way that you may gather around a table and discuss 15 it. And at times I was invited to projects on various 16 cases and utilized that system.¶

17 Q. Is that the only fashion that you would 18 have used Qtask during the time you were with RRA?¶

19 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. And when you say a project, as an example, 21 Jane Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein, if that had been 22 put, just this is hypothetically and then I will ask 23 you later whether that was in the system but if you 24 wanted or let me strike that.¶

25 Could Jane Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein¶

3 A. Repeat it again.¶

4 Q. Okay. Could a case like Jane Doe versus¶

5 Jeffrey Epstein been put in the Qtask system as a 6 project so that you and others could look at it?¶

7 A. You mean is, is, is the project capable of 8 holding such a project?¶

9 Q. Yes, just generically.¶

10 A. Yes, yes.¶

11 Q. And in terms of the RRA system, did the¶

12 BRA system ever have as, as a project Jane Doe 13 versus Jeffrey Epstein?¶

14 A. I don't believe so.¶

15 Q. Did you ever look in the Qtask, Qtask 16 system to determine whether you or anyone on your 17 behalf or any other person in the firm had ever put 18 Jane Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein into the Qtask 19 system?¶

20 A. Yes.¶

21 Q. Okay. And what did you find or not find?¶

22 A. I, I don't remember if that was the name of 23 any project in the system. It could have been, but it 24 may not have been. I don't remember that as a specific 25 project in the system.¶

1 Q. When you say a specific ro'ect, if I 2 understand you correctly, Mr. , that¶

3 have been, as an example, it could be any¶

4 could be a real estate case, it could be 5 case, it could be lane Doe versus 6 but someone could, someone whet tt w you or 7 someone else could put in facts and in ation 8 about the case?¶

9 A. Similar to anyA..ase m gement system that's, 10 it just happens to petb bas, but you have the right 11. concept.¶

12 Q. Is th con the same concept for an 13 electron rd electronic system, you had 14 the el management system?¶

15 A. I pose at full capacity it, it may. I just 16 wasn't tha adept at Qtask to know all of the 17 capabilities of Qtask.¶

18 Q. With regard to the third item which I am 19 going to come back to Qtask in just a minute, the 20 electronic case management software, what was the 21 name of that software?¶

22 A. I believe it's called Fortis.¶

23 Q. F-o-r-t-i-s?¶

24 A. I think so.¶

25 Q. I may have asked you, have you ever used a¶

2 A. Had I ever used Fortis before I came to RRA?¶

3 Q. Yes.¶

4 A. No.¶

5 Q. Now, back to Qtask. Did you, do you have¶

7 8 personally ever put any information into the Qtask system for a project --¶

9 A. Yes.¶

10 Q. -- on your cases?¶

11 A. Yes.¶

12 13 Q. Did you ever put, and I think you just testified as to the best of your ropollection, lane¶

14 15 Doc versus Jeffrey Epstein ver put into the Qtask system, correct?¶

16 A. As the name o ject?¶

17 Q. Yes, sir.¶

18 A. No. I e so.¶

19 20 Q. Wel project, cou you say the name of a information about Jane Doe¶

21 22 Epstein have gotten into the system ified as a, quote, unquote, project?¶

23 . SCAROLA: Calls for speculation.¶

24 MR. CRITTON: Do you understand the question, sir?¶

2 3 MR. SCAROLA: Are you asking whether that, that capability existed?¶

4 MR. CRITTON: Sure.¶

5 THE WITNESS: Did the capability exist?¶

6 MR CRITTON: Right. Again Mr. Scarola¶

7 8 9 10 didn't want to let me go through the explanation because he thought you understand it and I know you did, Brad. I know you understand.¶

11 12 13 THE WITNESS: I don't know that I understand that question. I want to make sure that I answer your question accurately.¶

14 15 MR CRITTON: See, cut me off too early, earlier.¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: No, too late.¶

17 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

18 19 Q. Mr. what I am trying to get is you described the Qtask as being project centric.¶

20 21 And as I understood it, the project may be given a label or a title?¶

22 A. Correct.¶

23 Q. So, it could be Jane Doe versus Epstein;¶

24 25 it could be Jane Doe; it could just be assault case; is that correct, whatever you wanted to call or¶

a recollection let me strike that. Did you ever¶

THE WITNESS: don't understand.¶

1 someone wanted to call the project?¶

2 A. You have the right idea.¶

3 Q. And if I understand it correctly is in 4 terms of the project, is if it was, if it was as an 5 example the Jane Doe case, you could, you or anyone 6 else could put information in about Jane Doe, might 7 not call it Jane Doe, but whatever amount of 8 information you or anyone else wanted to put in, 9 could put it into the Qtask so that other attorneys, 10 staff, investigators, paralegals, anyone who could 11 access the Qtask system, could see that project; is 12 that correct?¶

13 A. So that the people that were invited to the 14 project could see the project and those people only.¶

15 Q. And when you say invited to the project, 16 is, would, would, assuming you're the person who 17 created the project —¶

18 A. Okay.¶

19 Q. -- would you then set the parameters as 20 to, or the guidelines as to who could come into the 21 project?¶

22 A. Maybe.¶

23 Q. Okay. If, again, if it wasn't you, who 24 else could have set the parameters; that is, who 25 else can access the file?¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 A. Let's say I am the lead on a project: I believe that is what it was called the, I bet' e was the title given to the person that ini t project, if I want to then invite one o ee or 100 other attorneys to that project help 1i rk on various aspects, I could do that.¶

7 8 9 10 11 And if I didn't ch o add somebody, and another atto td make me a lead so that I can add so a y, is another way that that other lead co Id a invited somebody else to the project.¶

12 13 14 15 ou open up the interphase of Qt mediately shown a portfolio of or a pho the people that are invited to the specific p ject and those people can access it.¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. So, if it was, as an example, if it was, if you were the lead person and you invited Mr. Adler and you invited Mr. Berger in and Mr. Rothstein in, there, when you punched up the Qtask on the screen, I would see Mr. Rothstein's picture. I would see yours. I would see Mr. Berger's and Mr. Adler's?¶

23 A. Correct.¶

24 Q. As an example.¶

1 2 Q. Would I only see pictures or would I see names as well?¶

3 A. I don't remember that.¶

4 5 Q. Would it be a correct statement that during the time you were at RRA, you did use Qtask?¶

6 A. Yes.¶

7 8 9 Q. And did you ever put projects; that is, did you ever as the lead create projects through the Qtask system?¶

10 A. Yes.¶

11 12 13 Q. Would someone else, would, assuming that you were the lead and you treat the project, would only you be able to add infoiQtati n to Qtask?¶

14 A. No.¶

15 16 17 Q. Okay. Was, nvitee or person allowed access, owed to add to Qtask?¶

18 A. Co¶

19 20 Q. Oka delet he or she also be able to if they were an invitee?¶

21 t know that.¶

22 23 ti e you ever, did you ever — in any -- I hat you were not only the lead but from time you were invited into Qtask; is that¶

1 A. That's correct¶

2 Q. And during the time that you did, you, 3 when you were the lead, are you the one who chose 4 what went into the file, to the Qtask file?¶

5 A. No.¶

6 Q. Who would have made that decision?¶

7 A. Everybody in the, anybody that's invited can 8 add. I'm not the one that does it. Nobody has to come 9 to me to insert anything in the Qtask. You can add if 10 you're invited.¶

11 Q. Well, let's assume that you are, you're¶

12 the lead but you don't invite anyone; that is, you 13 create the 45:01 time project. You're the person 14 doing the adding, not staffwise but you're the 15 person that puts the information in.¶

16 A. I understood the question until you added the 17 segment about maybe some staff member helps you add the 18 Qtask. That just doesn't make sense with the program.¶

19 Q. Well, with Qtask, if you're the lead and 20 you don't invite anyone in because you're creating 21 the project itself, are you the person who chooses 22 exactly what goes in?¶

23 A. I am the person who puts in what goes in.¶

24 Q. All right. Are you, are you responding to 25 questions within Qtask where you put, you describe 1 the case. You describe the facts. You describe the 2 witnesses, things of that nature, or are you 3 actually, can you — well, first of all can you do 4 that?¶

5 A. Can you describe the case and describe the 6 facts? Yes, you can.¶

7 Q. And is that, when you say project centric, 8 is that what you're doing very much like the 9 electronic, much like the Fortis program?¶

10 A. It's not very much like the Fortis program in 11 my mind, but it's, it is what you are doing, you're 12 inputting information about a specific project.¶

13 Q. Can you put in the facts about a case, 14 again just generically, can you put in facts about a 15 particular case and then ask someone in your 16 invitees to comment on what they think, might think 17 the value of the case is or is not and give 18 suggestions as to discovery and things of that 19 nature? Is that all true?¶

20 A. Yes.¶

21 Q. And with regard to — and once those 22 invitees show up and they're photographed, then each 2 3 of those individuals can have arrtcs to the file and 24 add their thoughts or opinions -¶

25 A. Repeat it.¶

1 Q. And why do you believe that to be true?¶

2 A. It's not how the system works.¶

3 4 Q. Well, at least as you understand the system?¶

6 7 A. Well, if you want to tell me that it works a different way, then maybe you can persuade me but that's how I understand the system.¶

8 9 Q. I am not, I'm not arguing with you. MR. SCAROLA: Actually you are.¶

10 11 12 13 14 THE WITNESS: Assuming you had been on Qtask, it would help to get past all of these questions. If you had been on task it would help to get past all of this would see exactly what I am tryi d to you.¶

15 16 MR. CIUTTON: t d like to get on Qtask.¶

17 THE. WI .com.¶

18¶

19 20 21 22 23 Q. Oka mba that. With regard to, whe or not Mr. Rothstein could have Mr. Rosenfeldt or anyone else who was ee at least from your knowledge, you hey cannot access it?¶

BY MR. C¶

Correct.¶

Q. Can you as well on Qtask, can you as well¶

1 Q. — or suggestions. Let me strike tha¶

2 With regard to the Qtask, on 3 once -- assuming that you're the lead, 4 the project and then you, you say, ow s in 5 a form that I want to get some i itees i v ved. 6 Do you then send that project; th u then on 7 Qtask you list the invit d those people would 8 be, get some sort of cue t had been invited 9 to the project up t ,the Qt system?¶

10 A. I don't ber the exact process for 11 inviting, b ay to invite. And to the best 12 of my r they do receive a notification that 13 they vited so that they can accept.¶

14 . Can, can someone who has not been 15 invit also access the system?¶

16 A. o.¶

17 Q. Okay. And how do you know that?¶

18 A. That's just not how the system works.¶

19 Q. Well, it may not be how the system works, 2 0 but say if Mr. Rothstein wanted to access when he 21 was the head person at the RRA firm, he wanted to 22 access the Q, Qtask system, do you believe that he 23 would have been able to access the system whether 24 you invited him or not?¶

2 5 A. No.¶

1 post documents like an attachment?¶

2 A. I believe it has that capability. I think the 3 answer is yes.¶

4 Q. Now, with regard to the three cases that 5 you -- well, with regard to Jane Doe versus Jeffrey 6 Epstein, I think you already told me you don't 7 recall whether you put that in Qtask; is that 8 correct?¶

9 A. I didn't tell you that.¶

10 Q. Okay. Let me ask you then: Did you ever 11 use Qtask, you personally create a project as it 12 related to Jane Doe's case against Mr. Epstein?¶

13 A. No.¶

14 Q. To your knowledge did you direct anyone -- 15 well, let me strike that. Did you direct anyone to 16 create a project on Qtask for the Jane Doe case 17 against Mr. Epstein?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 Q. Okay. Do you know have you ever have 20 looked at the Qtask system — let me strike that.¶

21 From what you were able to access of 22 the Qtask system, did you ever go online on the 23 Qtask system to determine whether anyone else had 24 ever put the Jane Doe cast against Mr. Epstein on 25 Qtask?¶

1 A. No. 2 Q. And therefore as you sit here today, you 3 don't know whether someone else, whether it was 4 another attorney, whether it was an investigator or 5 a staff person ever put the Jane Doe versus Epstein 6 case on Qtask?¶

7 A. Or whether it was you, right.¶

8 Q. Right. As to L.M., did you ever put¶

9 L.M.'s case or direct -- well, let me strike that.¶

10 Did you ever create a project for L.M. on Qtask?¶

11 A. No.¶

12 Q. Did you ever direct that someone else 13 create a project in Qtask for the L.M. case, L.M. 14 versus Jeffrey Epstein case?¶

15 A. No.¶

16 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether —¶

17 let me strike that. Did you ever go on Qtask or¶

18 have you been able to determine whether anyone else¶

19 within the RRA finn put the L.M. versus Jeffrey¶

20 Epstein case or any aspects of it on Qtask? Have¶

21 you looked or do you know?¶

22 A. I don't know.¶

23 Q. Has anyone told you that the L.M. case¶

24 against Jeffrey Epstein was on Qtask?¶

25 A. No.¶

1 Q. Okay. And so it's your testimony as 2 as you know the L.M. versus Jeffrey Epst 3 not ever on the Qtask system; is that co¶

4 A. To the best of my recollecti¶

5 Q. When I describe both the us¶

6 Jeffrey Epstein case and the L.M. ..Jeffrey¶

7 Epstein case being on I don't necessarily¶

8 mean just the pleadings. I y aspect of it,¶

9 not necessarily thej4eadin rthe fact that the¶

10 case was there factual circumstances¶

11 surroundin r¶

12 A. I a t not ing to get into what my¶

13 workp lege, I am not going to allow you to¶

14 vilege. I am not going to tell you what,¶

15 regar those cases, was or was not on Qtask.¶

16 Q. ell, let me ask a specific question. So¶

17 if you want to claim some sort of privilege so the¶

18 record is clear.¶

19 A. Sure.¶

20 Q. With regard to, and let me go first to¶

21 the, finally to the E.W. case. With regard to the¶

22 E.W. versus Jeffrey Epstein case or any aspect of¶

23 it, did you ever put E.W. into the Qtask system?¶

24 MR. SCAROLA: Let us save you some time.¶

25 Why don't you ask whether the answers with¶

6 7 So I understand that if I want something broad later on, I would be glad to accept that, but thank you. Do you remember my question, sir.¶

9 THE WITNESS: No.¶

13 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

11 Q. Okay. With regard —¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. SCAROLA: For record let me observe I believe that y t 'stance upon asking the individ stio that you have now asked twice Bard to the other claims, and y ask the blanket question i t which I have suggested is an embarrassment and a harass t optis witness which does nothing arily consume his time.¶

21 RITTON:¶

22 23 , with regard to E.W., did you any aspects of that case; that is, not just 'pleadings but any aspects of the E.W. versus effrey Epstein case onto Qtask? Did you ever¶

1 regard to E.W. would be any different than the 2 answers given with respect to the other two 3 cases.¶

4 MR. CRITTON: I would have rather have it 5 specific. Oftentimes judge want to see that.¶

1 create a project?¶

2 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer.¶

3 TIE WITNESS: There was never a project¶

4 entitled to my recollection E.W. versus Jeffrey¶

5 Epstein, L.M. versus Jeffrey Epstein, Jane Doe¶

6 versus Jeffrey Epstein. And you're asking was¶

7 any information about those cases ever put onto¶

8 Qtask?¶

9 MR. CRITTON: I didn't ask that question.¶

10¶

11 THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. CRITTON: But I will in just a minute.¶

12 THE WITNESS: And my answer is no, those¶

13¶

14 Qtask.¶

15 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

16 Q. Now, separate and apart from -- let me¶

17 strike that. Let me just stay with E.W. with regard¶

18 to E.W. Did anyone else at your direction put any¶

19 information regarding E.W. into the Qtask system, an¶

20 attorney, staff person, or secretary or another¶

21 lawyer?¶

22 A. What do you mean by information?¶

23 24 Q. Any information about E.W. into the Qtask system?¶

25 A. I don't remember.¶

titles are not, I don't believe were ever on¶

1 Q. Okay. So we don't -- you gave a broader 2 response to a question or that is you rephrased the 3 question. So, let me ask it in a broader sense.¶

4 Was any information about the, your 5 three clients put into the Qtask, about your three 6 clients, Jane Doe, E.\V., and L.M. versus Jeffrey 7 Epstein, or against Jeffrey Epstein, was any 8 information ever put into the Qtask system? I don't 9 want to know the information, just whether you put 10 information into the Qtask system.¶

11 A. Ycs.¶

12 Q. Did you do it yourself or did you do it in 13 conjunction with someone else?¶

14 A. Explain to me what you mean by did I do it in 15 conjunction with somebody else.¶

16 Q. Well, is, you may have typed in the 17 information yourself.¶

18 A. I strike one key; somebody else strikes 19 another?¶

20 Q. No, you may have input all the information 21 you want, whatever information you want to put into¶

22 Qtask, you may have made the decision to do that. 23 All right. My question is someone else, a¶

24 secretary, or a paralegal may have helped you, an 25 investigator may have put some information in, at¶

1 least at your direction regarding these three¶

2 individuals' claims against Mr. Epstein?¶

3 A. Information that I put into Qtas¶

4 information that was inputted into¶

5 Q. Did you ever direct anyon else any¶

6 additional information in with r to ose three 7 claims against Mr. Epstci¶

8 A. I don't believe so.¶

9 Q. And what of intonation did you put 10 into Qtask reg the claims against Mr. Epstein?¶

11 MIL OL Read that back, please.¶

12 ed portion of the record was 13 read .)¶

14 AROLA: We're going to object and¶

15 t will instruct you not to answer on the 16 basis of both attorney-client and work-product 17 privileges.¶

18 MR. CRITTON: I assume if Mr. Scarola¶

19 asserts an objection, you're adopting that and¶

20 you would assert it. So, we don't have to do 21 that as A repetitious project here?¶

22 MR. SCAROLA: Correct.¶

23 MIt CRITTON: And that's correct.¶

24 MR. SCAROLA: you can assume that 25 my instructions to Mr. will be followed¶

1 2 by Mr. unless we expressly tell you otherwise.¶

3 MR. CRITTON: All right.¶

4 5 MR. SCAROLA: So, when I instruct him not to answer, he will follow that instruction.¶

6 7 MR. CRITTON: And you will do that, correct?¶

8 THE WITNESS: That's correct.¶

9 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

10 11 12 13 :4 :5 Q. With regard to the, the generic, and if I understood you correctly that there was generic or there was information put in one, two, or three of your clients' claims ag Epstein, did you have or identify indivi ere invitees to that Qtask file?¶

:6 A. I'm sorry question?¶

17 18 Q. Did y u a mdividuals who could be invitees¶

19 A. Di anybody into the project?¶

20 ure.¶

21 s.¶

22 cay. Who did you invite into the Qtask?¶

23 ti t me ask you this first, Mr. : With and to the claims against Mr. Epstein, the only three -- well, and I probably need to step back.¶

1 Would it, would it be a correct 2 statement during the time that you with RRA that the 3 only claims that you had against Mr. Epstein were 4 Jane Doe, E. W, and L.M.?¶

5 A. The only clients I represented, yes.¶

6 Q. And not necessarily in a lawsuit but those 7 are the only people that, that you and RRA 8 represented in any, in any existing or potential 9 claims against Mr. Epstein during the time you were 10 with RBA?¶

11 A. I believe so.¶

12 Q. By the way, could, could an outside 13 person, that is a person outside the firm access 14 Qtask as well?¶

15 A. You can access it right now.¶

16 Q. Can did you ever allow someone who was 17 not associated with BRA to access the Qtask file 18 relating to Mr. Epstein?¶

19 A. No.¶

20 Q. Okay. Was there more than one file that 21 was created associated with the claims against¶

22 Mr. Epstein?¶

23 A. I don't remember.¶

24 Q. Did anyone to your knowledge -- well, let 25 me strike that. Did anyone other than you create a 1 Qtask file relating to claims again Mr. Epstein?¶

2 A. To the best of my knowledge, no. I take that 3 back. I don't know who created the project, but I am 4 only aware of the project that I participated in related 5 to Mr. Epstein and his molestation of many children, 6 period.¶

7 Q. And what did you call the project; that is 8 how it was identified on the Qtask system?¶

9 A. I don't remember.¶

10 Q. Do you recall when it was created?¶

11 A. No.¶

12 Q. Do you recall whether it was created¶

13 within a month of your coming to RRA?¶

14 A. I don't remember.¶

15 Q. Do you recall whether it was, I think you 16 said approximately the beginning of April of '09 you 1'7 came to RRA, correct?¶

18 A. Correct.¶

19 Q. All right. And is it, just so the record¶

20 is clear it's, your testimony is you don't recall 21 whether you created the project in April, May, June, 22 July, August, September or October relating to the 23 claims against Mr. Epstein?¶

24 A. I don't remember if I created the project, 25 period.¶

1 BY MR. CRiTTON:¶

2 Q. During the time that you were at RRA, did 3 a number of people have access to the Epstein files 4 either, either in a paper form or in an electronic 5 form?¶

6 A. Either/or, yes.¶

7 Q. And maybe I should get a definition of, 8 with regard to the Epstein files, you had three 9 cases, Jane Doe, E.W., and L.M., correct?¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. You used Epstein 11 file as a defined term earlier. Are you now 12 using it generically?¶

13 MR. CRITTON: I am in to use it 14 genically and when I e o Qtask, I am 15 off Qtask for just a m Sot at I have an¶

16 understanding o filing was kept. And 17 I will come ba to Qt..k. So, right now l am 18 using the n a generic form. Not 19 using Q Ok y.¶

20 MR. S A: Okay.¶

21 TTON:¶

22 regard to the Epstein files or 23 know you had — we know you have three 2 that were filed that we have already ntified, Jane Doe?¶

1 Q. Separate and apart from whether — we 5So,/¶

2 3 let me strike that. If you didn't create the project, who would have?¶

4 A. I don't know.¶

5 Q. Well, do you remember -¶

6 7 that. Do you know whether with and the project, and for purposes of at least question,¶

8 9 let me just call it the Eps t, are you okay with that desigrtation¶

10 A. Yes.¶

11 Q. Ok and to the Epstein project¶

12 13 14 that was ate. th and Qtask system, if I am tly, you don't remember whether r someone else did, correct?¶

15 Correct.¶

16 17 18 Q. Who would have had access to your files that could have created the Epstein project other than you?¶

19 A. That question makes no sense.¶

20 Q. Okay.¶

21 22 MR. SCAROLA: And it also assumes facts not in evidence and does not have a prior¶

23 24 25 proper predicate. THE WITNESS: That's why it doesn't make sense.¶

1 A. That's good.¶

2 Q. E.W. and L.M., correct?¶

3 A. Correct.¶

4 5 6 7 Q. Were all materials relating to Jeffrey Epstein kept, kept under, at least for filing, for filing purposes at RRA, were they kept under the Epstein designation or, or some other designation?¶

8 A. Yes.¶

9 Q. Okay. And what was the designation?¶

10 11 A. I don't remember but it was either under Epstein or some other designation.¶

12 13 14 Q. And at RRA, were there both paper files or paper information as well as electronic information that was stored or kept regarding the Epstein files?¶

15 A. Correct.¶

16 17 Q. Was RRA supposed to be or at least designed to be a paperless office?¶

18 A. Yes.¶

19 20 21 22 Q. And would every document that came that was associated with the Epstein files, again in the generic sense, was that scanned in or put into the system in some fashion at RRA?¶

23 A. To the best of my knowledge.¶

24 MR. CRITTON: Just two minutes.¶

25¶

1 BY MR. CR1TTON: 2 Q. With regard to the scanned system; that 3 is, to store the electronic records, was that put in 4 through the, through the Fortis program? 5 A. Yes, I believe so. 6 Q. And did you as well -- let me strike that. 7 Prior to coming to RRA had you ever worked in a 8 paperless file or in a paperless office? 9 A. I don't understand. 10 Q. Had you ever been working in an office 11 prior to coming to RRA that was designed to be 12 paperless? 13 A. No, but as I mentioned earlier, I have worked 14 with case management software that stores electronic 15 versions of files, so therefore there is a paperless 16 system. 17 Q. Did you as well when you came to RRA with 18 regard to the Epstein related matters or the content 19 of your Epstein investigation and files, had you 20 placed any of that on a prior, a previous paperless 21 system or did you have the paper itself or both? 22 A. Both. 23 Q. And during the time that you operated at 24 RRA, did you operate both with a, you individually 25 with regard to the Epstein files, did you operate¶

1 both in a paper and a paperless manner? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did you operate only in a-- wcinjha 4 way did you operate? 5 A. Paperless. 6 Q. Okay. So if, if as an exam int you 7 correspondence or answ o interrogatories or a response to a pleading an in the mail, 9 would that docunjdn be s ed and then you would 10 toss away the 11 A. I 12 Q. S y well have had paper in 13 addi let me strike that. Do you 14 holier the document was scanned? 15 A. you're telling me you sent correspondence 16 in the mail and I would later see that correspondence in 17 my virtual mailbox, I make the logical assumption that 18 it was scanned. I never observed anything being 19 scanned. 20 Q. Okay. And do you, if something came to 21 you by mail, whether it was some form of discovery 22 or request, and I will be in the state cases, where, 23 which is not a paperless system and you don't file 24 through Pacer, would you ever see the paper that 25 actually came to your office or would you only see¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 :4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Pageti it electronically? A. For the most part I would see it electronically, but I can't say that I have never seen a piece of paper come in. MR. CR1TTON: Okay. Let me take a few minute break. MR. SCAROLA: Well, wait a second. Do you want to break at this point? THE WITNESS: Not really. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. We would like to keep going. MR. CRITTON: Can I ju4 go to the rest room for two minutes? MR. SCAROLA: THE VIDEOG We're now off video record. The ti m. (A brief held.) HER: Were now on video record. a ti is 11:28 a.m. BY CR1 N: ple, few more questions in Qtask. Did low Mr. Rothstein, was he an invitee on tein-related projects? A. I don't believe so. Q. With regard to the third electronic, the¶

1 Fortis system where you, if I understand you 2 correctly, you input various information into that 3 Epstein regarding Epstein files; is that correct? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You never used those systems with regard 6 to Epstein files? 7 A. 1 used the systems. I never input anything B into the system. I think it gets scanned in. 9 Q. And could anyone in the firm access the 10 Fortis system? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Could you access other files that weren't 13 necessarily yours within the Fortis system if you 14 wanted to? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. Mr. with regard to your 17 employment with RRA, did you know any of the RRA 18 partners prior to coming to that firm in 19 approximately April of '09? 20 A. What do you mean by know them? 21 Q. Did you know them? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. As either an acquaintance or a friend? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you have any friends at the RRA firm¶

1 before joining them? 2 A. People that I would consider to be my friend, 3 yes.¶

4 Q. Who.¶

5 A. Adler.¶

6 Q. And how did you know Mr. Adler?¶

7 A. We worked out at the same gym for about, 8 approximately four or five years.¶

9 Q. What were you doing, prior to your 10 association with RBA, what was your employment?¶

11 A. What?¶

12 Q. Were you working as a El practitioner?¶

13 Were you working with another firm prior to coming 14 to RRA in April of 09?¶

15 A. • practitioner.¶

16 Q. How long had you been a practitioner?¶

17 A. Approximately two years.¶

18 Q. During the time you were a¶

19 practitioner, did you ever have any associates¶

20 working for you, ■ imply that you're the only¶

21 one, is that true, or did you have associates that¶

22 actually worked for you?¶

23 A. Various times I had clerks, law school clerks, 24 but that was it.¶

25 Q. But no other lawyers?¶

1 A. Right.¶

2 3 Q. Did you ever have an investigator you?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

5 6 Q. Okay. Do you know an i the name of Fisten, F-i-s-t-e-n?¶

7 A. I know an individ al whose ast name is Fisten.¶

9 10 Q. All right. at's hi first name, the one you know?¶

11 A. Mik¶

12 Q. M sten?¶

13¶

14 15 16 Fisten ever do any work for you when you eked as a practitioner at any time prior to you *oining ERA?¶

17 A. No.¶

18 19 Q. Did you know of Michael Fisten or Mike Fisten prior to joining RRA?¶

20 A. No.¶

21 22 23 Q. With regard to the investigators that you used prior to joining RRA, did you use, or were any of those individuals ever employed by RRA during the¶

24 time you were there?¶

25 A. No.¶

p¶

414\¶

Q. How did it, how did it happen that you came to be employed by RRA?¶

A. I was offered a job.¶

Q. And how did that come, how did that come about?¶

A. Talking with Adler.¶

Q. Had you ever had a case against Mr. Adler or with Mr. Adler, either you were on the same side or against?¶

A. Yes.¶

Q. On how many occasions?¶

A. I can't recall.¶

Q. Okay. Did Mr. Adler ach you or did you approach him?¶

A. We worked out ame gym. It wasn't about approachin¶

Q. How did me up?¶

A. He Adler, and w firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt about it in a positive way for years ore the finn.¶

how did it come up that you would be n possibly working there; that is did he rad, you should come talk to me or did you am interested in working for the firm?¶

A. He would ask if I would be interested in¶

joining the firm.¶

Q. Okay. And what happened then? What ultimately happened that you, that you went from just having an interest to actually contemplating or being offered a position?¶

A. I didn't say I had an interest.¶

Q. So, what happened? How did you then end up at RRA?¶

A. Numerous conversations with Adler and him telling me about some of the other people there that I believed to be good lawyers, respected, ethical lawyers, and that this is a good place to work, great comradery, you have a team, I know you handle big cases. this will be something that will be good for you. And that was something I talked to him about seriously for four months maybe before joining RRA before finally agreeing to meet Scott Rothstein.¶

Q. All right. Had, did Mr. Adler ever discuss with you parameters or potential income or salary or whatever the compensation package would be —¶

A. Not specifically.¶

Q. — before you first met with Mr. Rothstein?¶

A. Not specifically.¶

1 Q. How many times did you meet with Scott 2 Rothstein prior to accepting a position with RRA?¶

3 A. Once.¶

4 Q. Where did the meeting take place?¶

5 A. The restaurant BOVA.¶

6 Q. Did you understand Mr. Rothstein had an 7 interest in BOVA?¶

8 A. At the time?¶

9 Q. Yes, sir.¶

10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you learn that during the time that 12 you worked for RRA¶

13 A. Yes.¶

14 Q. Okay. Who was present other than 15 Mr. Rothstein when you met with him at BOVA?¶

16 A. Nobody.¶

17 Q. Who had set up the meeting?¶

18 A.¶

19 Q. And had anything been discussed at least 20 as of that time with regard to what your opportunity 21 was or in terms of compensation?¶

22 A. Specifically, no.¶

23 Q. How long did the meeting with¶

24 Mr. Rothstein last?¶

25 A. Ten minutes.¶

1 Q. Did you have lunch with him or you just' 2 sat down and talked with him at the table at 3 restaurant?¶

4 A. Sat down and talked to him.¶

5 Q. Had you submitted any kin to 6 Mr. Adler as to what your experien¶

7 A. No.¶

8 Q. So, you, at that time¶

9 practitioner. Mr. A calls and says, or you¶

10 express an int Adler says we have an 11 interest in t yo d you set up a meeting 12 with Mr. R Is that pretty much it?¶

13 A. making things up that is totally 14 in doesn't reflect what I have been telling¶

15 you at didn't express any interests. I wasn't 16 looking fora job. I wasn't seeking him out. In fact,¶

17 that is the exact opposite of what I have just gone 18 through explaining to you about conversations at the gym¶

19 that ultimately lead to him convincing me this is a good 20 place to come into and me agreeing to this meeting with¶

21 Scott Rothstein.¶

22 Q. Okay. When you went to meet with Mr!¶

23 Rothstein did you have any interest or was this just 24 a throw-away meeting. Maybe I misunderstood. What¶

of the meeting if you had no interest in considering an opportunity with RRA?¶

A. For the most part placate Adler.¶

Q. Did Mr. Adler know the type of cases you had?¶

A. Of course.¶

Q. And was he aware as of that date you had filed the three cases against Mr. Epstein?¶

A. 1 don't believe so.¶

Q. Had you — is it your belief that the three cases against -- well, let me strike that. Do you recall when the first meeti was or the only meeting that you had with othstein prior to joining the firm?¶

A. It was prior t J g the firm.¶

Q. All right at?¶

A. I don'¶

month of your joining RRA, onths, six months?¶

y within six months of joining the itely within three months of joining the¶

hin that three month period, I don't recall. So, sometime between January and April of¶

you would have met with Mr. Rothstein for ten minutes?¶

1 A. I believe so.¶

2 Q. Okay. What did you talk about; that is, 3 what was the substance of the meeting?¶

4 A. says you would be an asset to the 5 finn. I will treat you fairly. How, how much do you 6 expect to make? Okay. I can't do that, but as soon as 7 you show your worth here, your salary is exponentially 8 increased because at this finn we operate under a system 9 of fairness. That was the gist of the meeting.¶

10 Q. Did he ask you how much you were malting at 11 that time or how much you had made the preceding 12 year, '08?¶

13 A. I believe so.¶

14 Q. What did you tell him?¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Instruct you not 16 to answer on the basis of economic privacy.¶

17 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

18 Q. Did you tell him what you had made, total 19 compensation for the year 2008?¶

20 A. I don't remember.¶

21 Q. Well, ill, if I understood you correctly,¶

22 I thought he said is I can't meet that salary or 23 that level of compensation, so you must have told 24 him something.¶

25 A. Yeah. I answered his question, what did you¶

1 expect.¶

2 Q. What did you tell him that you expected? 3 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, economic privacy.¶

4 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

5 Q. All I am interested now, not necessarily 6 what you were earning but what you told him, i.e., 7 Mr. Rothstein that you wanted to get or expected to 8 earn if you considered a job at RRA¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Economic 10 privacy, instruct you not to answer. It's 11 neither relevant nor material nor reasonably 12 likely to lead to relevant material information 13 and invades the economic privacy of the 14 witness.¶

15 MR. CRITTON: Is that form?¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON'¶

17 Q. Mr. , you gave him a number, is 18 that correct? Him meaning Mr. Rothstein.¶

19 A. I believe so.¶

20 Q. And was the number that you gave him more 21 than you had earned for the year 2008 or less?¶

22 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection.¶

23 MR. CRITTON: Or the same?¶

24 MIt SCAROLA: Same objection, same 25 instruction.¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

2 3 4 Q. Did you tell him that you -- did you him that you wanted to make more mon in the proceeding year?¶

6 MIL SCAROLA: Same obj instructions.¶

7 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

8 9 10 Q. Did he tell you how u would be paid if you came to wor RRA; t is, did he mention a number: This your salary would be if you¶

11 come and¶

12 13 A. I Q. mber did he say to you?¶

14 15 AROLA: Objection and same in ion.¶

16 BY MR. CRI1TON:¶

17 18 19 20 Q. Did he also tell you that you would get an economic incentive; that is, at the, at sometime during the course of the year based upon your production?¶

21 A. I would be compensated fairly.¶

22 Q. And that was it?¶

23 A. That was the gist.¶

24 25 Q. Okay. Did he talk about any benefits that you would receive?¶

1 A. Possibly.¶

2 Q. Do you recall what he said?¶

3 A. What do you mean by benefits?¶

4 5 Q. I mean would you get health insurance and those types of things as well?¶

6 A. I believe that was discussed. I'm not sure.¶

8 Q. Did you discuss any of your cases that you had with him?¶

7 I can't tell you I got them but 1 don't know.¶

10 A. No.¶

11 12 Q. Okay. Did you sign an employment agreement at any time with¶

13 A. No.¶

14 15 16 Q. After the -- let bac Did you say you did or did not dis y of your current cases with him?¶

17 A. Did n¶

18 19 Q. Ok your cases aware, had you discussed ou said you had discussed¶

20 yo s or 21 had? Adler had an idea of the type¶

22 I er the years Russ and I are friends; we 23 about cases.¶

' 2 cre . Did you say you had discussed the Epstein 5 cases with him? Him, meaning Adler.¶

1 A. 1, I don't believe 1 discussed the Epstein 2 cases with Adler until after I was employed at 3 RRA¶

4 Q. Did you mention Mr. Epstein at your 5 meeting with Mr. Rothstein?¶

6 A. No.¶

7 Q. Did you mention any of your three clients 8 who were suing Mr. Epstein at the meeting with 9 Mr. Rothstein?¶

10 A. No.¶

:1 Q. With regard to the, did you, did you 12 discuss with him if you came to work with RRA that 13 the cases — well, let me strike that. Did he 14 mention that if, if you came and worked for the firm 15 that those cases would become the property of RRA?¶

16 A. No.¶

17 Q. Did you understand that to be true?¶

18 A. I mean, I suppose so.¶

19 Q. Okay. Did —¶

20 A. I understood that I was going to be an 21 employee of the firm, of course.¶

22 Q. Well, did, did you, at the conclusion of 23 the meeting did you say, yes, I would like to work 24 here or how did you leave it?¶

25 A. Think about it.¶

1 Q. And how long did you think about it?¶

2 A. I don't remember.¶

3 Q. Did you, and who did you contact? Well, 4 let me strike that, At some point did you make a 5 decision --¶

6 A. Yes.¶

7 Q. -- to go work for RRA, correct?¶

8 A. Correct.¶

9 Q. Did Mr. Rothstein at the initial meeting 10 tell you whether you would be a partner?¶

11 A. No.¶

12 Q. Did he describe that you would be at least 13 to the public at large you would be described as a 14 partner?¶

15 A. No.¶

16 Q. Did you understand who the partners 17 were — well, let me nick that. Is RRA, was RRA a¶

18 PA?¶

19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Did you ever find out during, up through 21 today's date do you know whether RBA was a PA or an 22 LLC or an LLP?¶

23 A. No.¶

24 Q. Did you ever go online to look at who the 25 officers and directors were or had members if it was¶

1 an LLP?¶

2 .3 4 5 A. During the initial, initial meeting wi Rothstein, he told me there are only two of this law firm, and it will always and Stuart Rosenfeldt, period.¶

7 Q. And did he say that they ea 50 percent, or did he say, were just partners?¶

8 A. Did not say.¶

9 10 Q. Prior to y let me ice that. I think as you sai point you made a decision¶

11 to join¶

12 A.¶

13 Q. d you convey that to?¶

14 15 16 17 18 Q. d what happened thereafter? That is, how di you go from then being a practitioner into RRA? How did you integrate yourself? What was the timing and what did you do?¶

19 20 21 22 A. At some point in time I was no longer working in my Hollywood office and was working at RRA on Las Olas. So, physically I showed up to work at a different location.¶

23 24 25 Q. And did someone — well, let me strike that. From the time that you announced that you would go, you told Mr. Adler up until the time you 1 ended up at RRA, how much timed passed?¶

2 A. I don't know.¶

3 4 S Q. Prior to starting at RRA, did you have any further conversations with Mr. Rothstein; that is, up until the day that you showed up at that office?¶

6 A. No.¶

7 8 9 10 Q. And in terms of the cases; that is, the cases with L.M., with L.M., lane Doe and E.W. those are cases that you had signed up when you were a sole practitioner; is that correct?¶

11 A. Correct.¶

12 13 14 15 16 Q. And with each of those there was a, there is also another lawyer as involved - well, let me strike that e or e of those cases is Mr. Howell in or was he at the time you were a.¶

17 A. What do me by involved?¶

18 Q. Inv ved, a referring lawyer?¶

19 A. Yes¶

20 21 e referring lawyer on all three es?¶

22 23 was at least the referring lawyer directly¶

N 1 A. I'm finished.¶

Which one? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to nterrupt you.¶

2 Q. Which case was he the referring lawyer, 3 Mr. Howell?¶

4 A. E.W.¶

5 Q. And he may be the referring lawyer on Jane 6 Doe, and L.M., you just don't know as you sit here, 7 or he is?¶

8 A. He referred E.W.'s case.¶

9 Q. And the other two cases is he is shown as 10 the referring lawyer?¶

11 A. Ycs.¶

12 Q. There is also a person named Cassell who I 13 think is an attorney from Utah?¶

14 A. Okay.¶

15 Q. Do you recognize the name?¶

16 A. Yes.¶

17 Q. Okay. And what's his first name?¶

18 A. Paul.¶

19 Q. All right. Is he in any way a referring 20 lawyer, considered a referring lawyer with regard to 21 any of the three cases against Mr. Epstein?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 Q. What's his role?¶

24 A. Handles certain appellate issues.¶

25 Q. Okay. Is he, is he involved in as part¶

1 of, as a potential recipient of any contingency fee 2 or is he paid on an hourly basis, either when you 3 were a sole practitioner during the RRA stages or at 4 the current time?¶

5 A. Contingency.¶

6 Q. Does he get part, at least as it was set 7 up as a sole practitioner was Mr. Cassell also on 8 the contract with each of the three individuals?¶

9 A. I don't believe so.¶

10 Q. You don't -- he is not on any of the 11 contracts, Mr. Cassell?¶

12 A. There is a contract that he is on but your 13 question is when the cases were first signed up, was he 14 on the initial contract. And I believe the answer to 15 that is no.¶

16 Q. Prior to the time or during the time that 17 you were in sole practice before you went to RRA was 18 Mr. Cassell ever on any of the contracts with the 19 three Plaintiffs?¶

20 A. Yes.¶

21 Q. Okay. When you moved to RRA, was a new 22 fee agreement signed with each of the individuals, 23 each of the three Plaintiffs?¶

24 A. No.¶

25 Q. Was there some form of an assignment?¶

1 2 3 A. Well, not to my knowledge. I don't say no, but I don't know of any fee agre signed with the client. ti¶

4 5 6 Q. Asa -- from the time that let me strike that. If I unders is as an example E.W. was your y¶

7 A. First client.¶

8 9 10 11 12 Q. First client, right. have referred the a referring ord also came comes ell would so h uld have shown up as at some point Mr. Cassell or or a contract; is that¶

13 A. yes.¶

14 15 ere was at least two contracts with re 0 E.W.?¶

16 A. t I remember.¶

17 18 19 Q. And with regard to E.W., Jane Doe, and L.M., you don't recall any new contract being signed between those individuals and RRA; is that correct?¶

20 A. That is correct¶

21 22 23 24 25 Q. And with regard to the, whatever the contingency fee was in each of those three contracts, was that to be split? When you went to RRA, how was it to be determined what RRA would receive versus what you would receive or Mr. Cassell¶

or Mr. Howell, assuming there had been some resolution?¶

A. RRA would be standing in my shoes.¶

Q. And if1 understand it correctly, there was never an assignment of your contracts; that is, as a IN practitioner to RRA; is that correct?¶

A. Correct.¶

Q. Okay. And it was your intent just whatever the contract said when you went from practitioner to RRA, if those cases had resolved during that time period, RRA, you would have paid RRA that portion to which you re been entitled and Howell and a Cassell woul gotten their percentage?¶

A. Correct.¶

Q. And with Jaffe have been o, ith the new firm, the those new fee agreements our three clients?¶

A. Y¶

d ar . Cassell and Mr. Howell still tracts?¶

Has the receiver made a claim against the seeds of these three cases; that is, he filed, r. Seton on behalf of or as trustee, has he filed a¶

1 lien again those cases?¶

2 A. 'No.¶

3 Q. Has he sent you any correspondence 4 indicating that he intends to assert a lien against, 5 for attorney fees and/or costs that were incurred 6 during the time those cases were at RRA?¶

7 A. Not specifically related to those cases, but B in general, that concept is something that has been 9 communicated by a receiver or a trustee to us at =, 10 Jaffe, Weissing.¶

11 Q. Have you at any time; that is, have you 12 acknowledged, has anyone at, Jaffe 13 acknowledged their responsibility to repay monies to 14 RRA?¶

15 A. I don't understand the question.¶

16 Q. If the case is settled, does Jaffe 17 intend to repay the receiver a portion of the fees 18 at costs?¶

19 A. That issue has not been resolved.¶

20 Q. With regard to, with regard to the 21 third-patty --¶

22 (Interruption at the door.)¶

23 BY MR. CRITTON: 24 Q. Other than the attorneys is there -- with 25 regard to the, other than the attorneys, is there¶

1 anyone else other than, on any of these three cases; 2 that is, potentially RRA, potentially your new firm, 3 Mr. Cassell, Mr. Howell and the Plaintiff, does 4 anyone else stand to benefit from a recovery in any 5 of those cases?¶

6 A. No. 7 Q. Has anyone, has any interest in any of the 8 three cases been assigned to a, to a third party 9 other than a law firm or a lawyer or a law firm; 10 that is, to an outside service?¶

11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. Have any of the potential 13 settlements — I'm sorry. Have any of the potential 14 proceeds from any settlement or verdict been 15 assigned or sold to anyone to your knowledge?¶

16 A. No. 17 Q. Has E.W., Jane Doe, or L.M. sold, 18 assigned, exchanged for consideration, money, or 19 promises of money, any portion of their potential 20 settlements?¶

21 A. No. 22 Q. Or recoveries?¶

23 A. No.¶

24 Q. If I understood you correctly, 25¶

1 2 3 4 5 MR. SCAROLA: Let me interrupt moment. I don't know whether the applies but I want to be sure, d of your question include ale to a health care provider? on¶

6 7 MR. CRITTON: No. NIA. SCAROLA:¶

8 9 has occurred in any o assume that's pot what on't know whether that ases, but I 're looking for?¶

10 11 12 MR. C lookin to an ee. N: I wasn't, but no, I'm it would not be applied¶

13 14 15 16 17 derstand I wasn't talking about care providers. I am talking about e independent person or entity that may have purchased some interest or have been assigned some interest in any of those¶

18 19 20 21 22 three lawsuits. Do you understand that? THE WITNESS: I think I understood your question, and my answer was responsive and I was not thinking about letters of protection at the time that I gave my answer.¶

23 24 BY MR. CFtITTON: Q. With -- if I understood you correctly,¶

25 E.W. was your first case? 1 2 3 4 5 A. You understood me correctly. Q. All right. And when did E.W. retain your services, please? A. And by first case, just to clarify, she was my first client --¶

6 7 8 9 Q. I will rephrase it. A. - related to the matter that we're all familiar with that relates to things that happened to E.W. when she was young.¶

10 11 12 13 14 Q. Let me rephrase the question this way: If I understand your testimony is E.W., and I'm interested in Epstein cases; I am I interested in other portions of your practi understand That?¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. I do. And I th ou understand that this case, E.W.'s • case did not begin as a case against Je You know that and I know that, and th Moult for me to ask, answer thes es related to these clients because this as a case against the United States ffice.¶

22 23 ti right. With regard to the, at least representation of any of your three is that relate to Mr. Epstein in sane fashion, our first client was E.W; is that correct?¶

1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Do you recall when you first -- well, let 3 me strike that. She was referred to you by 4 Mr. Howell?¶

5 A. That is correct.¶

6 Q. Okay. And how did Mr. Howell know you? 7 A. I have known him for a long time.¶

8 Q. Law school?¶

9 A. No. 1 have known him since, I'm from 10 Jacksonville Beach. He's from Jacksonville. I have 11 known him when I was probably ten years old.¶

12 Q. Okay. Has Mr. Howell, prior to E.W., had 13 he ever referred to you any other client?¶

14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did it involve some sort of a sexual 16 assault or battery?¶

17 A. Yes.¶

18 Q. How many clients prior to E.W. had 19 Mr. Howell ever referred you?¶

20 A. I don't know.¶

21 Q. More than one? 22 A. Yes.¶

23 Q. When E.W. was referred to you, what was 24 your understanding as to the nature of the 25 representation, what would it be?¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 prior to her coming to see you or your seer? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. And did E.W. for the 4 first occasion come to your offic alk 5 to her by phone or did you got 6 A. First time I talked to E. 7 Q. Yes, sir. 8 A. Was over the tele Q. All right. d transpired befi is, how m before A. ng, how much time W. retained your services; that ons did you have with her ely retained your services? ersation over the telephone and then eting was in person at my office. That meet'h culminated with her retaining my services. Q. And the initial conversation you had with her, what did she relate to you? A. That's attorney-client privilege information thatl am not going to divulge. Q. During the time that you have been involved in this case on behalf of E.W, has Mr. Howell participated in the case; that is, has he done work on the case? A. Yes. Q. What kind of -- what has he done?¶

1 A. I don't understand. 2 Q. Why did E.W. come, why did she hire you in 3 the first place? What was the purpose? 4 A. This is going to get into attorney-client S privileged information as to why she hired me which 6 would incorporate the things that she told me that 7 related to my representation, therefore, I am invoking 8 the privilege and not answering. 9 Q. With regard to E.W. you filed a case — 10 well, let me ask you this: Do you know how E.W came 11 to contact Mr. Howell? Did he ever relate that to 12 you? 13 MR. SCAROLA: If it's in information that 14 you obtained from your client, I instruct you 15 not to answer. If it's information that you 16 obtained from Mr. Howell, I also instruct you 17 not to answer. Both instructions are on the 18 basis of attorney-client and work-product 19 privileges. 20 THE WITNESS: Attorney-client and 21 work-product privilege. 22 BY MR. DUTTON: 23 Q. Did you, did Mr. Howell -- and I don't 24 want to know the information, at least right now 25 did Mr. Howell give you any information about E.W.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, attorney-client privilege and work-product. Instruct you not to answer. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Your second, your next client was whom relating to Mr. Epstein or to the United States Government? A. I don't remember. Q. You ultimately filed a case styled Jane Doe 1 and 2 were petitioners versus the United States of America in July of '08, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Who was J4a oe 1? A. E.W. Q. Who was e 2? A. L.M. Q. At suit was filed, were you represen L.M, I'm sorry, Jane Doe? A. I v o, but I'm not sure. terms of the work that you did for, ave done for all three of the individuals u were a NI practitioner, did you keep of the time; that is, did you keep time ds? A. What's your question?¶

1 Q. During the time that you were a III 2 practitioner working on E.W, Jane Doe, whichever of 3 the three cases that you had, did you keep time 4 records? 5 A. Some. 6 Q. Do you keep time records on contingency 7 cases generally, or did you during that time period? 8 A. It's my intent to. 9 Q. Okay. Same would be true with, when you 10 were at RRA, did they have a time program? 11 A. They did have a time program. 12 Q. Did you input your time that you spent on 13 the Epstein related cases? 14 A. That was a requirement of the finn. 15 Q. Okay. So, you would have been put down 16 whatever time you spent, whether it was a 17 contingency fee case or an hourly case; is that 18 correct? 19 A. For the most part; that's correct. 20 Q. During the time that Mr. Howell has been 21 associated with the case, does he provide you with 22 time records as to the work or the amount of work 23 that he has done on the case? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Okay. Does he keep track of his time that¶

1 he has spent on each of the cases?¶

2 A. I do not know.¶

3 Q. Did you — has he prepared any pleadings 4 or documents associated with the cases?¶

5 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that 6 question.¶

7 THE WITNESS: Define prepared.¶

8 BY MIt SCAROLA:¶

9 Q. All right. Prepared, prepared, start, 10 first of all, started from scratch; that is, has he 11 prepared any of the pleadings or papers that have 12 been filed in any of the three cases starting from 13 scratch that he would have been — not because you 14 said this but he started with the complaint and you 15 may have changed it, but he started the preparation 16 of the document?¶

17 A. Your question is has he started the 18 preparation of a document now, right?¶

19 Q. Any document, any paper that's been filed 20 in the cases or I would say passed back and forth 21 between lawyers in any of the three cases?¶

22 A. Has he had edited revised, I mean what —¶

23 Q. Right now I am just asking did he start¶

24 the document such as a complaint or a similar type 25 document?¶

1 A. That was filed in the case?¶

2 Q. Correct.¶

3 A. No.¶

4 S 6 Q. Okay. Has he worked on doe it's editing, adding, deleting from you, pleadings or papers that you a pr ared? a¶

7 A. Yes. Bob, can you hand me water?¶

8¶

9 Q. Yes. A. Thanks. Applecrate¶

10 11 12 13 14 Q. You're w, continued to Praai with e continued, did he not only when you were a during the time that you were aid to editing or working on the¶

15 ANTo an extent.¶

16 Q. y. Do you, how often on the cases have¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 you consulted with Mr. Howell? By that I mean before a decision is made as to how you want to do discovery or proceed with the filing of the pleading or how you're going to respond, does Mr. Howell, do you consult with Mr. Howell during the time you were both I. practicer and were at RRA?¶

23 24 25 A. Is your question asking for the answer to be in a percentage? How often do I consult? I am just not sure how to quantify.¶

Q. Sure. I am okay with that. Flow often do 2 you consult with Mr. Howell with regard to those 3 three cases prior to the time that you started with 4 your current, Jaffe association?¶

5 A. It is an impossible question for me to answer 6 accurately with a percentage that I have spoken with 7 Mr. Howell about any particular document or anything.¶

Q. As to pleadings, do you discuss, do you 9 send it to him for his review, editing, before you 10 file a pleading?¶

11 A. Typically no.¶

12 Q. How often do you constrlSpr have you 13 consulted with Mr. Howell dtyin the time you were 14 with RRA?¶

15 A. What type of a r do ou want in terms of 16 how often have I?¶

17 Q. Do you d¶

18 A. Hav e.¶

19 Q. Is it mmon practice that when 20 you'r mg or do something that you would 21 Howell?¶

22 at all.¶

23 o,doyou--¶

241 Not at all common I mean.¶

Q. So, during the course of the month, say¶

1 during the time that you were at RRA, how often 2 would you consult with Mr. Howell regarding the 3 cases? And I recognize every day or every week 4 might be different. Would you speak with him like 5 once a month, or two or three times a month, or 6 generally once every couple of months?¶

7 A. Depending on what was going on in the cases at 8 the time, at sometimes more than others.¶

9 Q. How did L.M. come to be a client of yours?¶

10 A. She called me.¶

11 Q. And how did she get your name?¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: To the extent that your 13 response to that question would require that 14 you reveal either work-product or 15 attorney-client privileged information, I 16 instruct you not to answer.¶

17 THE WITNESS: I simply don't know.¶

18 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

19 Q. Did Ms. L.M. hire you in the or — I'm 20 going to strike that.¶

21 How many conversations did you have 22 with and/or meetings did you have with Ms. L.M. 23 before you hired her, or before she hired you. I'm 24 sorry.¶

25 A. I don't remember.¶

1 Q. Did she ever come and meet you at your 2 office?¶

3 A. From the beginning of time until today? 4 Q. No. Back at the time prior to retaining 5 your services.¶

6 A. I don't remember.¶

7 Q. Did you ever meet her at her residence or 8 place of work? Let me ask you this: Have you ever 9 met her at her place of business or a place of 10 business?¶

11 A. No.¶

12 Q. Have you ever met her at her home, whether 13 it's an apartment or home, whatever?¶

14 A. Now, you're asking from the beginning of time 15 until now?¶

16 Q. No. Up until the time she hired you, did 17 you ever meet with her?¶

18 A. Okay.¶

19 Q. At her home or apartment.¶

20 A. To the best of my recollection, no.¶

21 Q. Did you -- did she sign, to the best of 22 your recollection did she sign a fee agreement?¶

23 Well, let me strike that. There is a, there is a 24 written fee agreement between L.M. and you and 25 then —¶

1 A. Correct.¶

2 Q. — her originally?¶

4 5 Q. Did you ever meet her pr that fee agreement? ing¶

6 A. Yes.¶

7 8 Q. And do you reemev where that meeting took place?¶

9 A. Generally¶

10 Q. Okay.¶

11 A. A¶

12 Q. Aqd own?¶

13¶

14 15 w. don't know whether it was in Broward Cottrit r Palm Beach County?¶

16 A. do know.¶

17 Q. Which county?¶

18 A. Palm Beach County.¶

19 20 Q. Was that arranged by her to meet her there?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

22 23 Q. And what, for what purpose did Ms. L.M. originally hire you?¶

24 25 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege¶

A. Correct. • information.¶

2 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

3 4 Q. When you met Ms. L.M. at the park was anyone else present?¶

5 A. Yes.¶

6 Q. Who?¶

7 A. I don't know.¶

8 Q. Male or female?¶

9 A. I presume both. It's a park.¶

10 11 12 Q. No, no, no. In the meeting that you had with her -- my guess is there were probably a lot of people in the park?¶

13 14 15 A. Correct. Q. In the meeting th ' h Ms.LM. was anyone else prese¶

16 17 A. For the oo as ietween myself and Ms. L.M., no.¶

18 19 20 Q. Wh you fiRRfiet with E.W. was anyone present for conyiersations between that you and Ms.¶

21¶

22 23 nk you told me at the time that the nt was filed or at the time that the Jane Doe 2 sued the United States Government which was n early July, it was July 8th of '08, you don't¶

1 recall whether you were representing Jane Doe at 2 that time?¶

3 A. I believe I was but I do not recall for sure.¶

4 Q. At the time do you know whether, at the 5 time that you represented Jane Doe I, do you know 6 whether her name, whether she was considered a 7 victim by the United States Attorneys Office?¶

8 A. Ask your question again.¶

9 Q. All right. At the time you began 10 representing E.W. or at any time prior to the filing 11 of the lawsuit against the United States Government 12 in July of '08, did you learn whether she was listed¶

13 as a, or deemed to be a victim by the United States 14 Attorneys Office?¶

15 MR. SCAROLA: If that is information that 16 you obtained in the course of the performance 17 of your responsibilities in representation of 18 any client, I would instruct you not to answer.¶

19 If that information was obtained 20 through some public source independent of 21 the work that you performed as counsel, 22 then you may respond.¶

23 THE WITNESS: I cannot respond.¶

24 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

25 Q. With regard to the question, I am not¶

7 5 Q. -- regarding, regarding, r 6 subject of the lawsuit or Jeffrey MR. SCAROLA: Same obiEtfn and¶

8 instruction.¶

9 10 MR. CRITTON: where is the third parties;¶

11 12 13 14 15 16 MRS anyth • Work product has to do with was-Bone in connection with the of these three clients. If he versations independent of his lion of those clients, then he can resaond to the question.¶

17 BY MR. CRTITON:¶

18 Q. Well, let me ask you a broader question.¶

19 20 21 22 After you filed the lawsuit against the United States of America, were you aware that - Villafana or the United States Attorney's Office represented the USA, correct?¶

23 A. Yes.¶

24 25 Q. All right. Did you ever speak with= Villafana during, during the pendency of that¶

1 interested in what you learned from E.W. All right. 2 Did you learn from either any correspondence or a 3 telephone call with any third party that whether 4 again prior to the -- let me start again.¶

5 Prior to the filing of the lawsuit 6 against Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 against the United 7 States Government, did you leant from any source, 8 maybe a document, maybe a telephone call or a 9 conversation that you had with a third party 10 separate from your client, that E.W. was a victim or 11 was deemed to be a victim by the United States 12 Government or the United States Attorney's Office?¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and 14 instruction.¶

15 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

16 Q. Same question with regard to L.M. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and 18 instruction.¶

19 BY MR. CRITTON: 20 Q. And same question with regard to Jane Doe. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and 22 instruction.¶

23 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

24 Q. Prior to your filing the lawsuit with 25 United States Government, did you ever any 1 litigation which is still pending today?¶

2 MR. SCAROLA: And I assume that question 3 is qualified by inquiring as to whether such a 4 conversation occurred with regard to any of the 5 three individuals who he is representing claims 6 against Mr. Epstein or the U.S. Attorney's 7 Office, correct?¶

8 MR. CRITTON: Say that again?¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. Are you asking 10 whether such conversations occurred that were 11 relevant to his prosecution of the claims on 12 behalf of his three clients?¶

13 MR. CRITTON: Su¶

¹⁴MR. SCAROLA: 71 n the instruction 15 remains the same biect on remains the 16 same.¶

17 BY MR. SCAR¶

18 Q. So, ou -- even if you talked 19 about it w Mrs. Villafana, even if your client 20 Mr. e with Mrs. Villafana about a 21 issue, it's your position that that is 22 -product?¶

23 I SCAROLA: That's correct. We we not 2.44 oing to discuss anything that Mr. did in the course of the prosecution of his claims¶

1 conversations with the United States Attorney. 2 Office --¶

3 MR. SCAROLA: I assume -¶

4 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

1 on behalf of his clients.¶

2 3 MR. CRITTON: So, any question that I ask you with conversations that¶

4 5 6 7 8 9 Mr. had with the U.S.A.O.'S office, whether it was Mrs. Villafana or anyone else from the time, with regard to the Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 versus U.SA. case, you would instruct Mr. not to answer those questions?¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: That is correct.¶

11 MR. CRITTON: So if I —¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: Obviously pending --¶

13 MR. CRITTON: -- let me just finish¶

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. SCAROLA: Obviously pending, obviously pending some instructions or guidance from the court with regard to how the court will interpret the work-product privilege in this context. I might also add that it is our position that any such inquiry exerts a chilling effect upon the work that Mr. continues to do on behalf of his three clients.¶

22 23 24 25 It is intended as a means to obtain discovery that would not otherwise he available in those pending claims. It is intended to annoy, harass, and embarrass¶

1 Mr. Epstein in a lawsuit that has 2 absolutely no foundation whatsoever, and 3 was filed for purposes other than a 4 legitimate claim against Mr. based 5 upon any good faith belief that he engaged 6 in any form of improper or tortious 7 conduct and — 8 MR. CRITTON: Done? 9 MR. SCAROLA: -- those inquires are not 10 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 11 of admissible and relevant evidence. So, for 12 all of those reasons, we objecL 13 MR. CRITTON: And let me just put on the 14 record very briefly so at least at this point 15 in time this is all information that clearly is 16 relevant to the complaint as it's alleged. 17 I have received a, my client and I 18 have both received a letter from you 19 asserting a motion for fees and costs and 20 certain sanctions under 57.105, by not 21 allowing us to ask what are clearly, I 22 believe, relevant material, basic 23 discoverable information are preventing 24 our ability to get all of the facts here 25 such that we can make a reasonable¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision as to whether or not the 57 motion and lever which you sen filed in good faith or has any it. Were unable then to, II large part unable to eval position. MR. SCAROLA those are decisions th made, could been mad d our position is that d well have been e been i ade, and should have e you ever filed the claim. : All right. Are we done? OLA: Yes. ON: All right. SCAROLA: At least for now. . CRITTON: I'm shocked. BY CRITTON: Q. With regard to, with regard to the claim Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 that is currently pending -- or let me strike that. Jane Doe 2 — Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 against the U.S.A. that was filed in July of 08, that case is still pending. A. Okay. Q. Is that correct? A. That was a question, yes.¶

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ti Q. All right. And have any, have you had any discussions -- well, let me strike that. What's the status of that case? A. It's still pending. Q. Other than still pending is a, is there, are there any outstanding motions? A. No. Q. 1 want to ask, to get back to one question with regard to both the Qtask and with regard to the Fortis system -- well, let me strike that. With regard to the hard copies of the files that you had that is any p r files that you had associated with the Ep les, where would they have been kept at A. In a filing cab Q. And vier office or wereath A. Th other loca inets in your the general hallways? g cabinets in my office and in e office. kayWith regard to the Epstein related here did you keep those if they were - at that is the hard copies, did you keep solely in your office or would they have been in your office and in other places throughout RRA?¶

1 A. That were times when they were in my office 2 and there were times when they were kept in filing 3 cabinets elsewhere on one of the RRA floors. I believe 4 there were five or six floors of RRA 5 Q. Okay. Was there a central storage, say if 6 there were a number of files in this instance 7 relating to Mr. Epstein, could you send those to 8 basically central storage and if you wanted someone 9 could go down and pick them up arid bring them up to 10 you? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Well, if you wanted to access something 13 that was in an Epstein file, and it wasn't in your 14 office, how did you arnpcs it, that is, a hard copy? 15 A. You're speaking specifically about 16 Mr. Epstein's cases or hypothetically with any cases? 17 Q. No, Mr. Epstein's cases? 18 A. As I sit here right now, I can't say with 19 absolute certainty that I ever had a piece of the hard 20 copy file requested for it to be brought to me. 21 Q. Well, with regard to Mr. Epstein's files, 22 though, if they were in a location, would it be a 23 correct statement that those were not, wasn't a 24 locked location or a secure location within the 25 contents of within the confines of the firm?¶

1 A. I don't know that that's a correct statement. 2 Q. You don't know one way or the other? 3 A. The law firm was constantly expanding and 4 constantly under construction. For the most part in the 5 beginning the cases were kept in a, in a filing cabinet 6 in my office and later were kept in a filing cabinet, I 7 believe, in a locked storage location in another area of 8 the office. 9 Q. And did any attorney have access to that 10 storage area or do you know? 11 A. I believe any attorney could have had access. 12 Q. And if the attorney could have access, you 13 wouldn't necessarily know about it, true? 14 A. Correct 15 Q. In the trustee's filing that they made in 16 response to my motion to preserve evidence, they 17 indicated that 13 boxes relating to Jeffrey Epstein 18 had been removed by the FBI or the government when 19 they came into the RRA offices. Do you remember 20 seeing that pleading? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. Are you, were there, in fact, 13 23 boxes of material or at least 13 banker's boxes of 24 material that related to matters directed to, 25 whether, whatever the content related to Mr. Epstein¶

1 did they also have swipe cards so that they could 2 access different areas in the firm? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. With regard to when you joined RRA, did 5 you ever have any further meetings with 6 Mr. Rothstein; that is, from the day you started at 7 RRA, did you ever meet Mr. Rothstein again? 8 A. By meet him again — 9 Q. Did you ever have a meeting with him again 10 regarding your position in the firm? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. Did you ever meet ith him and a 13 number of other individuals with gards to firm 14 business? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Firm cases? 17 A. I don't bet 18 Q. Was ever present in any 19 meeting f your cases were discussed? Let 20 me strike tha Mr. Rothstein ever present 21 any meeting %here any of the cases 22 rey Epstein were discussed? Don't tell 23 t; just was he ever present. 24 How would I know that? I don't know. He Id, he could be in a meeting right now where the case¶

• 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that you were aware of, that is, hard copies?
  • A. I don't know.
  • Q. Okay. Could have been more, been less; you just don't know?
    • A. Correct.
  • Q. If I understood your testi Mr. Rothstein, Mr. Rosenfeldt, any investigator could have a depending or whet
  • A. lam no it. You asked attorneys Each er attorney or lose files they wire t4lithin the finn, true? who could have accessed attorneys could and the s for various locked areas. lieve had access to any area where located. I believe so. ay. Well, during the time you were there did an individual by the name of Ken Jenne work there?
    • A. Yes.
  • Q. Okay. Did an individual by the name of Mike Fisten work for the firm —
    • A. Yes.
  • Q. for RRA? Were they employees of the firm or were they independent contractors?
    • A. I don't know.
    • Q. Okay. During the time they were there,

1 could be discussed for all I know. 2 Q. I'm sorry. Obviously, where you, where 3 you were present. Where you ever present at a 4 meeting where Mr. Rothstein was also present where 5 the Epstein cases were discussed? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did he ever call you to communicate with 8 you, call you either by phone, video conference, in 9 any fashion to discuss any act aspect of the cases 10 that you had against Jeffrey Epstein? 11 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that. 12 THE WITNESS: He has communicated about 13 various, about legal issues related to the case 14 as well as commented about the case to me on 15 very few occasions but I would say less than 16 three times. 17 BY MR. CRITTON: 18 Q. During the time that you, from April of 19 '09 through late October of '09, correct? 20 A. In that time period, where, is that when 21 these -- 22 Q. Correct. 23 A. -- things happened? 24 Q. Well, that's the time you were there; 25 that's what I am asking.¶

6 7 A. I don't remember. Q. Were you with so 'ends? Were you with¶

9 other lawyers? A. All right. my memory. I, I have¶

10 no idea.¶

11 12 Q. Wh LA: To the extent that you can¶

13 14 ens estion without disclosing any essions with regard to the lawsuit¶

15 16 or alty attorney-client privileged communications, you can answer.¶

17 To the extent that it might invade¶

18 19 either the work-product or attorney-client privilege, you should not respond.¶

20 THE WITNESS: Can I talk to you?¶

21 MR. SCAROLA: Sure.¶

22 23 (A brief recess was held.) MR. SCAROLA: Are we on?¶

24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yeah.¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: The record should reflect¶

1 A. When I was there. 2 Q. And do you, can you remember the date, any 3 specific date that you spoke with him?¶

4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you remember any specific month that 6 you would have had one of the -- well, what did you 7 say something less than five conversations? 1 don't 8 want to misquote you.¶

9 A. I said less than three conversations. 10 Q. All right. So, something less then three 11 conversations you had with Mr. Rothstein regarding 12 Epstein cases, either legal issue or a comment, some 13 comment about the case to you, Correct?¶

14 A. Yes. 15 Q. All right. The first time that he ever 16 spoke to you, did he call you or did you call him?¶

17 A. I, I never called Scott Rothstein about 18 anything. U, take that back. About anything related 19 to Jeffrey Epstein.¶

20 Q. The first conversation that you can recall 21 where either a legal issue or a comment was made 22 about Jeffrey Epstein by Mr. Rothstein to you, he 23 obviously initiated the call?¶

24 A. It wasn't a call. 25 Q. What was it?¶

1 A. A comment in passing. And I believ 2 sitting at a table in BOVA when he walk 3 table and commented about Jeffrey E¶

4 Q. Okay. Who were you ther 5 time?¶

7 8 6 Q. What did he say? A. He commented to me, I want you to get that pedophile.¶

9 Q. And your response was what?¶

10 11 12 A. I didn't respond. Q. All right. Second conversation that you can remember, where were you?¶

13 A. I had just come out o nference room on¶

14 15 16 the main floor after taki posi n in another case. And he walked pedophile yet. said, did you get that F'ing¶

17 Q. And y¶

18 A. Aga'¶

19 20 Q. No I respond.¶

21 22 23 he first occasion when he came over erstand correctly, all he said was the nt that you referenced and then he left. You¶

that we have had an opportunity to consult and 2 I have advised Mr. that there is no 3 privilege protection for the particular 4 communications involved.¶

S BY MR. CRIITON:¶

't respond and then he just made the comment and en left?¶

1 A. Right. He was walking by in his normal, loud. 2 ostentatious kind of way, greeting everybody in the 3 restaurant. Came over to my table and he feels, at 4 least my impression was obliged to say something to 5 everyone. And that's the comment he said to me.¶

6 And if you've ever seen him, he is¶

7 basically always just skipping around and he hoped 8 on over somewhere else. So, yes, it was in, 9 literally in passing.¶

10 Q. Okay. Flow, how, how did he even know you¶

11 had cases involving Mr. Epstein? 12 A. I don't know.¶

13 Q. Because I think you testified earlier that¶

14 you had never discussed an Epstein case with 15 Mr. Rothstein one-on-one, correct?¶

16 A. Absolutely, true.¶

17 Q. You never discussed an Epstein case or 18 either of your three clients with Mr. Rothstein even 19 with a group of people around, correct?¶

20 A. Correct.¶

21 Q. All right. Do you remember a third 22 occasion that he spoke to you regarding Epstein 23 related occasion, cases?¶

24 A. Anything else that he ever spoke with me about¶

25 related to Epstein related issues is attorney-client and¶

1 work-product privileged information that I am not going 2 to divulge.¶

3 Q. Okay. lam not --1 need to still ask the 4 last question though. 1 thought you said earlier is 5 that you never had any substantive conversations, 6 maybe I misunderstood, with Mr. Rothstein about the 7 Epstein cases. Did I misunderstand you?¶

8 A. I don't believe that that was — I had 9 conversations at a point about legal issues related to 10 Jeffrey Epstein and that's, that's it.¶

11 Q. Was that a one conversation? Was that a 12 number of conversations that you had where legal 13 issues were discussed as to, separate and apart from 14 the two comments he made about the case to you which 15 you were, you waived any privilege, work-product or 16 attorney-client privilege?¶

17 A. 1,1can't tell you. If you and I this 18 morning had a conversation and then we took a bathroom 19 break, and we had the same continuing conversation, I 20 don't know if that's one conversation or two. But I can 21 tell you the, the only time I remember Scott Rothstein 22 participating in any way, shape, or form in any 23 conversation related to anything substantive dealing 24 with, and not dealing with any specific client but a 25 legal issue, was on a particular one-day event, one-day¶

1 conversation, if you want to call it.¶

2 Q. And that's at what time? At that time legal issues were discussed?¶

4 5 MR. SCAROLA: Legal issue testimony, a particular legal iss¶

6 MR. CRITTON: Correct. AOettal issue.¶

7 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

9 9 10 Q. When did that occu discussion or a day specific legal iss is one-day occur regarding a¶

11 12 13 A. I don' Q. W y he Mr. Rothstein and you prmen ime?¶

14¶

15 Q. kay. Was anyone else there with you?¶

16 A. es.¶

17 Q. Who else was present?¶

18 19 20 A. Russ Adler, someone was on the telephone. I'm not remembering who that was. 1 can't remember. I will tell you if I do remember.¶

21 Q. Was Bill Berger there?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 24 25 Q. And, you don't. So, there was you. Well, let me strike that. Where did the conversation take place?¶

6 5 Q. Okay. And who contacted you and told you that Mr. Rothstein wanted to see you?¶

7 A. His, his secretary or paralegal or something.¶

8 9 10 Q. And did you get a call saying Mr. Rothstein would like to see you right now, or was it something that was scheduled?¶

11 A. It was not scheduled.¶

12 13 Q. So, you got a call and so body told you, come up, Scott, Scott wants you.¶

14 15 16 A. I don't remember ct y t was used, but it was I believe, _ ' ing a legal issue with Scott Rothstein; h cc.¶

17 18 Q. Okay. \V 141 i. issue, did it involve one of the r the Epstein cases?¶

19 A. It, i as a I gal issue related to -- yes.¶

20 21 22 ay. long, how much time did you II, let me strike that. So, when you Mr. Rothstein's office, it's -- I¶

23 nd you had to go through some security to n?¶

'124(5 -4sy¶

2 A. M, really. Okay. Yeah, it's —

¶

3 Q. In order to get into Mr. Rothstein's —¶

4 A. It's like a compound.¶

5 6 Q. Kind of concern you that this guy running the firm had a compound?¶

7 9 9 A. I -- at the time, no. In retrospect, okay, now that we all know how this whole thing unfolded, but at the time, no.¶

10 11 12 Q. Had you ever worked in an office? And you had worked at some big offices. You worked at the State Attorney's office in Broward County?¶

13 A. True.¶

14 Q. You worked for, I think for Kubicki¶

15 Draper?¶

16 A. Correct.¶

17 18 19 Q. Did Mr. Kubicki, Gene Kubicki ever have a compound around his office that you had to go¶

20 21 through any type of seaway either people and/or locked doors or secured doors in order to arc cs him?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 24 25 Q. Had you ever worked other than the Broward County Sheriffs, at the Broward County State Attorney's Office with, and with Kubicki Draper, had¶

1 A. Scott Rothstein's office.¶

2 Q. Had you been called up to meet with 3 Mr. Rothstein?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

A. You've seen the video?¶

Q. I actually haven't.¶

1 you ever worked for a large firm?¶

2 A. No. You just named all the places I have 3 worked.¶

4 Q. All right. Is this the first time then 5 that you had been to Mr. Rothstein's office that he 6 called you up there?¶

7 A. No.¶

8 Q. You had been in his office before?¶

9 A. Onetime.¶

10 Q. And what was that occasion?¶

11 A. I was having back surgery, and I went there to 12 tell him I am having back surgery. As you know I had 13 back surgery, and I was telling him I don't know how 14 long I'm going to be off because, you know, the recovery 15 time is different for everybody.¶

16 Q. Is that the only thing you talked about, 17 the back surgery?¶

18 A. mat's the only thing se talked about.¶

19 Q. Did the meeting you had with Scott, when 20 you went up, when you were called up to his office 21 that day, did that occur before your back surgery 22 episode or meeting or after?¶

23 A. After.¶

24 Q. So, you would, you had back surgery. I¶

25 think you were out two or three weeks and then you¶

1 Q. How many security, different security 2 levels did you have to go through in order to get, 3 to go have your meeting with Mr. Rothstein and 4 Mr. Adler?¶

5 A. Two.¶

6 Q. And to your recollection you don't 7 remember ever seeing a security person?¶

8 A. Right.¶

9 Q. Okay. Who was in the office?¶

10 A. Well --¶

11 Q. I'm sorry.¶

12 A. I do not remember seer a security person 13 the door or grant. a ss to his office. I¶

14 saw security people eve y rn office of RRA 15 Q. All right. An you got into the 16 office, Mr. Rot r e?¶

17 A. Yes.¶

18 Q. Mr Adl¶

19 A. Y¶

20 er someone on the telephone who you 21 I?¶

22 es.¶

23 Okay. Was there anyone else present?¶

A. Not that I remember.¶

Q. Okay. Was, were there any investigators,¶

1 2 returned to the office, and then that meeting have occurred?¶

3 A. Yeah, that's correct.¶

4 5 6 7 Q. When you, in order to get just as you have described it as tinker Ip9Cv many, did you have to go through any r ople to get into —¶

8 9 MR. SCAROLA: 1 Ilk the description was a compo¶

10 11 MR. C you m N: I will use compound. Are e with compound or a bunker?¶

12 13 14 I hay se escribed both ways. I haven't, but I have seen it described¶

15 16 THE WITNESS: I will describe it for you. Well, first I will answer your question.¶

17 18 19 20 21 22 Security people, I don't know if there was ever a time where one would have to go through security people to get to his office. But on the day or two days that I have been in his office, I did not encounter any security personnel.¶

23 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

24 Q. Did you have to be buzzed into the office?¶

25 A. It was more complicated than that. 1 was Mr. Jenne or Mr. Fisten present?¶

2 A. No.¶

3 4 Q. So, it was, you, Rothstein, Adler, and someone on the phone; that's it?¶

5 A. From what I remember.¶

6 Q. How long did the meeting last?¶

7 A. I don't know how long the meeting lasted.¶

8 9 Q. Five minutes or was it a substantially long meeting?¶

10 11 12 A. Do you want how long I was in the meeting, I can give you an answer. How long the meeting lasted, I have no idea.¶

13 14 Q. How long did the meeting last while you were present?¶

15 A. Less than five minutes.¶

16 17 Q. Was the value of any of the three cases discutsrd at all?¶

1.8 A. No.¶

1.9 Q. Did Mr. Rothstein, did Mr. Rothstein¶

20 appear to be knowledgeable about your cases?¶

21 A. No.¶

22 23 24 Q. Mr. Adler, was Mr. Adler someone that you had discussed the cases with on a somewhat regular basis —¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound. 1 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

2 Q. not content. Was Mr. Adler someone¶

3 that you had discussed these Epstein cases with 4 prior to that meeting?¶

5 A. Yes.¶

6 Q. Was he familiar with the cases, generally?¶

7 A. He attended Jeffrey Epstein's deposition, so¶

8 he heard the questions asked and heard the Fifth¶

9 Amendment invocation and so the adverse inferences and 10 was therefore informed --¶

11 MR. CRITTON: Move to strike as 12 nonresponsive.¶

13 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

14 Q. My question is was he familiar generally¶

15 with the subject matter of the litigation against¶

16 Mr. Epstein?¶

17 A. In that he read the newspaper articles about¶

18 molesting a bunch of children, yes, he was familiar with 19 the subject matter.¶

20 Q. And he read — did you provide him with¶

21 copies of the pleadings in these ca*es when they¶

22 came to RRA?¶

23 A. No.¶

24 Q. What was the topic? What was the legal¶

25 issue that you discussed — well, let me strike¶

7 privilege.¶

8 THE WITNESS: Work-product privilege.¶

9 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

10 11 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Fandry, F-a-n-d-r-y?¶

12 A. That name doesn't rin bell right now.¶

13 Q. Do you know him t e does that name¶

14 mean anything with regat$to, investigator,¶

15 Fandry?¶

16 A. That's a¶

17 Q. Pardo¶

18 A. Th e or a last name?¶

19 Q. La Richard Fandry.¶

20 21 22 kno investigator named Rick that did contracted out by RRA to do investigative¶

23 Did, did Rick ever do any work on any of¶

1 that Who raised the legal issue, did¶

2 Mr. Adler raise it or did Mr. Rothstein?.¶

3 A. i don't know.¶

4 Q. Okay. Well, how did the,¶

5 6 if you were there I think you said did the talking?¶

7 8 A. When I came in thin the office, it was in the middle of a discussion.¶

9 Q. Was a ques 'on pose to you?¶

10 A. The quefbgwas on c table at least from my¶

11 12 perspective the room and was then directed at me, wh wer to this particular legal issue.¶

13 as the legal issue?¶

14 15 AROLA: Let's talk for just a¶

16 17 VIDEOGRAPHER: Are we going off the record?¶

18 19 MR. SCAROLA: Actually, we don't even have to go off the record. Stay right here.¶

20 If this was an issue that was¶

21 identified during the course of the legal¶

22 proceedings to opposing counsel, then I am¶

23 going to allow you to you identify the¶

24 issue without getting into any of the¶

25 substance of the discussion regarding that 1 2 Q. was? Do you know what the name of his business¶

3 A. No.¶

4 Q. Is Rick still being employed at the¶

5 current time by your firm to do investigation?¶

6 A. No.¶

7 Q. Is Mr. — I asked you earlier if you knew¶

9 10 you knew that they had an association with RRA; is that correct?¶

11 A. Yeah, that's correct.¶

12 Q. And do you know whether they were¶

13 employees or whether they were independent¶

14 contractors?¶

15 A. You asked me that and I still have no idea.¶

16 Q. Did they have offices within RRA,¶

17 Mr. Jenne and Mr. Fisten?¶

18 19 20 21 A. They. Mr. Jenne definitely had an office within RRA Mr. Fisten was normally in the field and I assume he had a place to go in RRA I don't know if you call it an office.¶

22 Q. Did you ever go —¶

23 A. That's it.¶

24 Q. Did you ever go meet with him within RRA?¶

25 A. Yes.¶

1 issue.¶

2 If it was not an issue that was¶

3 identified in the course of the¶

4 proceedings to opposing counsel, I am¶

S going to object and instruct you not to¶

6 answer on the basis of the work-product¶

on't know his last name but —¶

pstein cases to your knowledge?¶

A. I believe so.¶

Ken Jenne and Michael Fisten and you said yes and¶

1 2 Q. Where did you go -- did you go to an office to meet him?¶

3 4 5 A. Well, I went to a particular area, a locked area that I could get in with my swipe card and there was a, a room like this. Is this an office?¶

6 Q. Sure.¶

7 A. Okay. Then yes.¶

B 9 10 Q. If you wanted to contact Mr. Fisten, did you, did you have a number; that is, an inside number?¶

11 A. I don't know.¶

12 13 Q. Did Mr. Fisten do work on the Epstein related cases?¶

14 A. Yes.¶

15 Q. Okay. What kind of work did he do?¶

16 A. Investigator.¶

17 Q. Meaning what?¶

18 A. Meaning investigative work.¶

19 20 21 22 Q. Okay. Has Mr. Fisten continued to do - let me strike that. When RRA imploded in early or in late '09, in October of '09, did Mr. Fisten come to work for your firm?¶

23 A. Yes.¶

24 25 Q. Jaffe. Is he an employee of your firm?¶

1 A. Correct.¶

2 3 Q. How about Mr. Jenne, is he curre employed by your firm?¶

4 A. No.¶

5 6 Q. Do Mr. Jenne and Mr. Fi knowledge, have any association the urrent time?¶

7 A. No.¶

8 9 10 Q. Have, has Mr. Fist' inued to do work on behalf of your ; that investigative work relating to Mr. in?¶

11 A. M.. 7. has he continued to?¶

12 13 14 Q. H contin i tv tinued, has Mr. Fisten done, vestigative work since he had been Jaffe relating to the Epstein cases?¶

15 16 A. On, on many cases and Jeffrey Epstein's case being e of them, yes, he's done some work.¶

17 18 19 Q. Has he, has he as well — well, let me strike that. Has Ken Jenne done any work for any outside agency, investigative agency or entity, done¶

20 21 investigation work relating to Jeffrey Epstein here in the State of Florida?¶

22 A. I don't, I don't know. I don't talk to him.¶

23 24 Q. Have you had any contact well, let me strike that. Did you ever have any contact with¶

25 Mr. Jenne during the time you were at RRA? 1 A. Yes.¶

2 Q. Did he ever do any work, or did you ever 3 direct him to do any work with regard to the Epstein 4 cases?¶

5 A. No.¶

6 Q. Did he know about the Epstein cases?¶

7 A. Yes.¶

8 Q. Okay. And how did he know? How did you 9 know he knew? Well, let me strike that. I think 10 you said you never directed him to do any work?¶

11 A. Right.¶

12 Q. Okay. And how do yo ow he was 13 knowledgeable about the E i cases?¶

14 A. I talked to him a¶

15 Q. Did you discu acts and 16 circumstances of a 'th hint?¶

17 A. Of L. Jane Doe's specific 18 circumstan t, I would say, I would 19 highly, it's hlyjnlikely that he would even know 20 thei es.¶

21 you have discussed the Epstein cases 22 it generically?¶

23 Right.¶

2A. And did he approach you about discussing 55, he Epstein cases or did you approach him?¶

1 A. He would have approached me. I didn't know 2 him.¶

3 Q. Do you recall why — let me strike that.¶

4 Do you recall how long you were at the firm, RRA 5 before he approached you to talk about the Epstein 6 cases?¶

7 A. My recollection is several months.¶

8 Q. Okay. On how many occasions did he 9 approach you to talk about the Epstein cases?¶

10 A. I don't know.¶

11 Q. More than once?¶

12 A. Yes.¶

13 Q. More than twice?¶

14 A. Yes.¶

15 Q. More than five times?¶

16 A. Yes.¶

17 Q. More than ten times?¶

18 A. Possibly.¶

19 Q. Okay. And with regard to Mr. Jenne did 20 you ever give him, was he ever an invite person on 21 your Qtask?¶

22 A. I do not believe so.¶

2 3 Q. Did, did you ever ask Mr. Jenne why he was 2 4 interested in your Epstein cases?¶

25 A. No.¶

1 Q. Okay. And on each occasion he approached 2 you about talking about the Epstein cases?¶

3 A. On the first I occasion, definitely. I can't 4 say on every occasion that we had a conversation.¶

5 Q. And if I understood you correctly, you 6 never assigned Mr. Jenne any tasks, any task; is 7 that correct?¶

8 A. That's correct.¶

9 Q. Did you find it odd or strange that he 10 would want to talk to you about your Epstein cases?¶

11 A. No.¶

12 Q. Did you, did you — Mr. Jenne reported to 13 whom as you understood?¶

14 A. I didn't understand anything.¶

15 Q. Do you know what his position with the 16 firm was?¶

17 A. No idea.¶

18 Q. Did he ever offer to help you with the 19 Epstein cases?¶

20 A. In some respect, I guess so. Generally, you 21 know,!, I can help. This is basically a criminal¶

22 matter, I can help. You know, that kind of thing. I am 23 not saying those are his exact words but paraphrasing¶

24 the gist of it, that's what I remember.¶

25 Q. Okay. Mr. , did you ever contact¶

1 the media or the press when, that's located 2 York City, the State of New York, about 3 Epstein cases?¶

4 A. I may have returned teleph 5 initiated by press to me.¶

6 Q. My, my question to you you¶

7 initiate any telephone cats; that is, 8 returning a call to the, to 9 or press in New Y k reg ithout ber of the media ding the Epstein cases?¶

10 A. Meanirlt e first nversation —¶

11 Q. Rig¶

12 — eah. No, I did not.¶

13 14 acted you from New York with y stein related matter?¶

15¶

16 The press. Q. )Who?¶

17 A. I don't remember anybody's name.¶

18 19 Q. Give me anybody's name that you can recall.¶

20 A. Rush.¶

21 22 Q. What media, what did you understand his association?¶

23 A. I believe New York Daily News.¶

24 25 Q. Do you remember when Mr. Rush contacted you?¶

1 A. No.¶

2 Q. When Mr. Rush contacted you, do you know 3 why he contacted you; that is, what -- well, let me 4 strike that. When he contacted you, did you take 5 his call right away or was his a call that you had 6 to return?¶

7 A. 1 don't remember.¶

8 Q. Do you remember speaking with a person 9 named John Canally?¶

10 A. Yes.¶

11 Q. Okay. What was Mr. Canally's association?¶

12 A. I don't know.¶

13 Q. Do you know who he ;kith at the time?¶

14 A. No.¶

15 Q. What did your with Mr. Canally; 16 that is, what was Iv,r t crested in and what 17 did you tell hi ?¶

MR. objection, compound.¶

19 THE S: I, I listened to him more 20 thy' old h king.¶

21 MR. TTON:¶

22 you provide him any information?¶

23 n the back and forth of the conversation, I, 24 w, maybe general information that one could read the newspapers I talked to him about.¶

1 Q. Did you speak with, other than — on how 2 many occasions did you speak with Mr. Canally?¶

3 A. I don't know.¶

4 Q. On how many occasion's have spoken with 5 Mr. Rush?¶

6 A. I don't know.¶

7 Q. More than once with Mr. Rush?¶

8 A. I would say so, yes.¶

9 Q. More than five times with Mr. Rush?¶

10 A. That's approximate, that's approximately 11 correct.¶

12 Q. Okay. Mr. Canally, did you speak with him 13 on more than one occasion?¶

14 A. Yes.¶

15 Q. On how many occasion's have you spoken 16 with him?¶

17 A. 1 don't know.¶

18 Q. Five, two, three, your best estimate?¶

19 A. More than five.¶

20 Q. When was the last time you spoke with¶

21 Mr. Canally?¶

22 A. 2009.¶

23 Q. Have you had any contacts with the media 24 or the press during the year 2010, January,¶

25 February, March, and we're almost, well, we're¶

1 almost at the end of March. In the last three 2 months, starting in January 1st of2010, have you 3 had any contact with the press?¶

4 A. Not that I recall. 5 Q. Has the press contacted you, but you have 6 not returned their calls?¶

7 A. On hundreds and hundreds of occasions.¶

8 Q. Well, my question is since the beginning 9 of, since January 1st of 2010 has the press 10 attempted to contact you?¶

11 A. Yes.¶

12 Q. And if I understand your testimony, you¶

13 have not returned any of those calls? 14 A. To the best of my recollection I, I do not 15 remember speaking with anybody from the press during 16 this year, 2010.¶

17 Q In 2010, do you have a recollection of 18 having spoken with people but saying you can't quote 19 mc, i.e., I have no comment or I will tell you off 20 the record?¶

21 A. I don't even remember having those 22 conversations with anybody in 2010. If you know of 23 something and can refresh my recollection, I, you may be 24 able to remind me, but I don't think in 20101 have had 25 any of those conversations.¶

1 2 3 Q. The conversations you had with Rush, when you returned his call, what di ask you? What was he inquiring about¶

4 A. My response to Jeffrey Epstpi¶

5 Q. Which comments?¶

6 7 8 A. A telephone conversation Epstein to Rush claims against Mr. Epstein. y Jeffrey ed to the various cases and¶

9 10 11 12 Q. Did Mr. R call yo I'm sorry, I will improve it If I n land correctly when Mr. Rush called you, time you knew who he was?¶

13 14 A. w who he was before he called me,¶

15 16 Q. at did Mr. Rush tell you what Jeffrey Epstein had said to him?¶

17 18 A. And I'm not sure that that was the first conversation I had with, with Rush. Like I said¶

19 I think I've talked to him three or four, five times.¶

20 21 22 23 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if I can place, can you give me a point in time when you first spoke to Mr. Rush and when you last spoke with him the approximately five times that you related?¶

24 25 A. Each of those times were in 2009 between, earliest possible, June, I think, yeah, latest possible, 2 3 Q. And the first time that Mr. Rush called you, what was the subject?¶

4 A. Jeffrey Epstein.¶

5 6 7 Q. Okay. I assume you never talked with Mr. Rush about any topic other than Mr. Epstein, correct?¶

8 A. That's a safe assumption.¶

9 10 11 Q. When he first contacted you, can you differentiate what he said on the first occasion versus a later occasion?¶

12 13 14 A. I, I, no, in chronological order I can't right now. I haven't gone back this before. ught about this like¶

15 16 Q. Did you ever 6olkcfiond with Mr. Rush or Mr. Canally by¶

17 18 A. Mr. Rtuh Mr. Canall e that answer is no. With¶

19 20 Q. An do ou have copies of the e-mails th nd Canally exchanged?¶

21¶

22 23 ay. Would they have been while you were ,RRA?¶

ti Q. With regard to Mr. Rush, if you did¶

1 I believe, November.¶

A. Correct.¶

1 communicate with him by e-mail, would it be during 2 the time you were with RRA?¶

3 A. That's correct.¶

4 Q. Did you communicate with any other member 5 of the press during the time, we'll come back to 6 Mr. Epstein. During the time when you were at RRA, 7 did you communicate with anybody else by, by either, 8 first of all, by e-mail?¶

9 A. What is your question again? I'm sorry.¶

10 Q. Okay. Did you -- other than Mr. Rush who 11 you're not sure you communicated by e-mail,¶

12 Mr. Canally who you are sure you communicated by 13 e-mail during the time you were at RRA, was there 14 any member of the press, TV, written news media, 15 television that you communicated with --¶

16 A. I'm sure.¶

17 Q. -- by e-mail?¶

18 A. I am sure there is.¶

19 Q. Okay. Do you remember any of their names 20 other than Mr. Rush and Mr. Canally as ycu sit here 21 today?¶

22 A. Not as I sit here today, I do not.¶

23 Q. Did you ever communicate with Jose 24 Lambiet?¶

25 A. I don't know who that is.¶

1 Q. He does a Page 2 or something with the,¶

2 Page I, Page 2 of the Palm Beach Post?¶

3 A. No. I'm not, no.¶

4 Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken with Jane¶

S Muskrat (phonetic)?¶

6 A. Again, I don't know who that is.¶

7 Q. Have you ever — did you ever give or¶

8 allow one of your clients to give an interview to 9 one of the local TV stations?¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound.¶

11 THE WITNESS: One of my clients gave an¶

12 interview to one of the local television¶

13 stations.¶

14 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

15 Q. Which of your clients gave the interview?¶

16 A. Jane Doe.¶

17 Q. And did you organize that?¶

18 A. I assisted.¶

19 Q. Which, which TV station was it?¶

20 A. I don't remember.¶

21 Q. Do you remember who the person was from 22 the TV station that contacted you? Let me strike¶

2 3 that. How did it come about that Jane Doe gave an 2 4 interview to the TV station?¶

25 A. Various television stations have been¶

1 2 interested over the course of these cases in havi clients talk. I was adamant that that was not¶

3 happen and Jane Doe wanted that to¶

4 5 Q. How did Jane Doc even know opportunity existed? Ifyou didn't¶

6 7 8 happen when the news, when the n TV stations called you why didn't yo clients are not available for v? le, when the say my¶

9 A. What's your uestion¶

10 Q. The ques is, is, with regard to the¶

11 12 T.V. station, ou sai u tiple TV stations wanted to do inte h y ur clients. Did I¶

13 under ectly?¶

14 15 16 Q. d you said you didn't want any of your clients t do interviews, correct?¶

17 A. Right.¶

18 Q. Okay. So, why didn't you just say, no, I¶

19 am not making any of my clients available?¶

20 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the¶

21 extent that that calls for either mental¶

22 impressions or attorney-client privileged¶

23 communications and instruct you not to answer.¶

24 THE WITNESS: I'm not going to answer¶

25 based on the privilege.¶

2 Q. Jane Doe, though, did give an interview, 3 correct¶

4 A. That is correct.¶

5 Q. -- on TV and they blocked out her face?¶

6 A. That is correct.¶

7 Q. Were you there, were you present when she 8 gave the interview?¶

9 A. Yes.¶

10 Q. Okay. Did you see the interview on TV?¶

11 A. No.¶

12 Q. Did they give you a copy of the tape of 13 the interview?¶

14 A. I believe a copy o was sent to me.¶

15 Q. Okay. Do y ave t at in your 16 possession?¶

17 A. No.¶

19 Q. Wh¶

19 A. I b eve it vas destroyed.¶

20 I. Who oyed it?¶

21 body destroyed it.¶

22 O ay. You said, I think you said you 23 t's destroyed. How did it come to be¶

Yed?¶

A. It was sent to me and it was kept in my house¶

as I didn't believe it was any portion of the file and 2 my house flooded and the tape was destroyed.¶

3 Q. And did you try to play the tape?¶

4 A. I have never watched the tape.¶

5 Q. You still have it. You just think it's 6 destroyed?¶

7 A. No, I don't even have it.¶

8 Q. You threw it away?¶

9 A. It wasn't a matter of throwing anything away.¶

10 My entire house was full with water, every square inch 11 for 12 inches up the wall, and everything was just in 12 mud and got thrown in these huge bins and trashed so —¶

13 Q. All right. Have you ever spoken with¶

14 Daryan?¶

15 A. Yes.¶

16 Q. On how many occasions have you spoken with 17 her?¶

18 A. Several.¶

19 Q. Have you e-mailed, exchanged e-mails with 20 her?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

22 Q. During the time you, only during the time 23 you were with RRA?¶

24 A. I believe so. There, there could have been,¶

25 there could have been an e-mail. Ill I only think at RRA¶

1 1 believe that's right.¶

2 Q. As a result of Jane Doe speaking with the 3 press, did she receive any compensation?¶

4 A. No.¶

5 Q. Have any interviews been given separate 6 and apart from the TV interview that Jane Doe gave?¶

7 Did any of the other, did either of your other two 8 clients, E.W. or L.M., ever give an interview to, 9 written to, to the written media, not TV?¶

10 A. No.¶

11 Q. With regard to, back to Rush, you 12 said that Mr. Rush, Mr. Rush contacted you. You 13 recontacted him, correct?¶

14 A. That's correct.¶

15 Q. Okay. And what was the subject matter? 16 What was Mr. Rush interested in talking with you 17 about?¶

18 A. Jeffrey Epstein.¶

19 Q. Okay. And what, what specifically about¶

20 Mr. Epstein? How did he even know you existed, did 21 he say?¶

22 A. I don't know. Or, or if I knew, I don't 23 remember how he knew that.¶

24 Q. Okay. Did you, did you talk to him?¶

25 A. Yes, I did talk to him.¶

1 2 Q. Approximately, how many, how long your conversations been?¶

3 A. Short.¶

4 5 Q. And with regard to said he was interested in talking¶

6 7 8 9 Epstein. What was he interested A. I don't remember it seemed to me that he time, something re ed to case ifically Tl ie issue, but with an issue each¶

10 11 Q. Okay. Mr. Epstein's case or your thre¶

12 13 14 15 16 A. I it was typically in general re criminal acts committed by ein against the large number of girls in each¶

Display truncated; use Text to download the complete prepared source.¶