The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Record

Draft: efta02772505

LW LW U CC O N >-: z 2 Lu U.

C4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

  • vs.

SCO1T ROTHSTEIN individually, J. individually, and I. M., individually,

Plaintiff,

Defendant,

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

CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG

Atic ) FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

J. a sues Jeffrey Epstein (EPSTEIN) and alleges:

COUNT I—ABUSE OF PROCESS

    1. This is an action for es in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
    1. Counter/p tiff, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, and is an attorney licensed to ractice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto.
    1. .r/defendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. PSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of female children over an extended period of time in violation of both Statc and Federal criminal laws.

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMDAG Fourth Amended Counterclaim Page 2 of 13

  1. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases against him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agencies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molestation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children including victims represented by

  2. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive questions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extraordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their just value.

  3. In some circumstances, EPSTEIN's tactics have proven successful, while other victims have thus far withstood this continued assault upon them and persisted in the prosecution of their claims. clients are among those who continued the prosecution of their claims and the assertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).

  4. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct nor has taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise.

  5. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and client, L.M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate L.M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. His sole purpose in both filing and prosecuting claims against was never the stated purpose of collecting money damages from since EPSTEIN knew that he had never suffered any damage as a consequence of any wrongdoing by . Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert from the prosecution of legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require to expend time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass and impugn his integrity, and deter others with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of having to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on L.M., and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press release issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege.

  6. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S primary purpose in both filing and continuing to prosecute each of the claims against was to inflict a maximum economic burden on in having to defend against the spurious claims, to distract from the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN arising out of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort EDWARDS into abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against

    1. The claims filed by EPSTEIN against included the following:
    • a. violation of F.S. §§772.101, ct. seq.— Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act;
    • b. Florida RICO—"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" pursuant to F.S. §§895.0
    • c. abuse of process;
    • d. fraud;
    • e. conspiracy to commit fraud.

  1. EPSTEIN, in, his Complaint, directly alleged that was a knowing participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speculation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual support for his spurious allegations. Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate for his claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil theft claim.

  2. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his failed prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful conclusion because:

  • a. they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief or suspicion that they were true;
  • b. he had suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of EDWARDS;
  • c. he had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination in order to provide the relevant and material discovery that would be necessary in the course of prosecuting the claims, (even if they had any reasonable basis), and he knew that his prosecution would consequently be barred by the sword-shield doctrine;
  • d. EDWARDS' conduct in the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN could not support the prosecution of a separate civil lawsuit against because of the absolute protection of the litigation privilege.

  1. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously detailed in Paragraph 9.

  2. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against recklessly and purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800X)COCMBAO Fourth Amended Counterclaim Page 6 of 13

his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meritorious claims.

  1. Each and every pleading filed by and on behalf of EPSTEIN in his prosecution of every claim against every motion, every request for production, every subpoena issued, and every deposition taken as detailed on the docket sheet was intended with respect to solely and exclusively to advance EPSTEIN'S efforts at extortion as previously detailed, and constituted a perversion of process after its initial service.

  2. As a result of EPSTEIN's wrongful conduct as, alleged, has suffered and will continue to suffer the following special damages;

  • a. injury to his reputation;
  • b. mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety;
  • c. fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family;
  • d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities;
  • e. the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims.

WHEREFORE, demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff, , having satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the assertion of a claim for punitive damages and having been granted leave of Court to assert such a claim does hereby also assert a claim for punitive damages.

Counter/plaintiff, a, further demands trial by jury.

COUNT II-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

  1. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

  2. Counter/plaintiff, , is sui juris, resides in 13roward County, Florida, and is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto.

  3. Counter/defendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a les' t of Palm Beach County, Florida.

  4. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having .4.-Stt: to a plea agreement pursuant to e which he effectively conceded his having enga c in nillicit sexual activity with a large number of female children over an extended period occte aiin t 'olation of both State and Federal criminal laws.

  5. EPSTEIN was sue ivilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases against him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agencies continue <to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molestation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of farther criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children including victims represented by

  6. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive

questions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extraordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for subs than their just value.

  1. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct nor has taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise.

  2. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against and client, L.M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate L.M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. His sole purpose in filing claims against was never the stated purpose of collecting money damages from since EPSTEIN knew that he had never suffered any damage as a consequence of any wrongdoing by Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert from the prosecution of legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require to expend time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass and impugn his integrity, and deter

others with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of having to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on, L.M., and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press release issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege.

  1. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S primary purpose in filing each of the claims against EDW to inflict a maximum economic burden on in having to defend ca rious claims, to distract from the prosecution of claims against arising out of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort Eritw into abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against I .

  2. The claims filed by EPSTEIN against were the following:

  • a. violation of F.S. §§772.1 01, et. seq.— Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act;
  • b. (Clicorida RICO—"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" °pursuant to F.S. §§895.01, et. seq.; abuse of process; fraud;
  • e. conspiracy to commit fraud.
  • d.
  1. EPSTEIN, in his Complaint, directly alleged that was a knowing participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise and that he had conspired to and did engage in

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800X)DOCMBAG Fourth Amended Counterclaim Page 10 of 13

a fraud against EPSTEIN when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speculation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual support for his, spurious allegations. Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to s~latms, of a civil theft claim.

  1. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his failed prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful conclusion because:
  • a. they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief or suspicion that they were true;
  • b. he had suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of la
  • c. he had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfcrimination in order to provide the relevant and material discovery that Owould be necessary in the course of prosecuting the claims, (even if they had any reasonable basis), and he knew that his prosecution would consequently be barred by the sword-shield doctrine;
  • d. conduct in the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN could not support the prosecution of a separate civil lawsuit against because of the absolute protection of the litigation privilege.

  1. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously detailed in Paragraph 25.

  2. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against recklessly and purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meritorious claims.

  3. After unsuccessful efforts to defend and amend his maliciously filed and prosecuted claims over a period of almost two years, EPSTEIN abandoned each of the claims described in Paragraph 27 except for an ongoing effort to salvage his abuse of process claim. That abandonment brings to successful conclusion defense against each of the other abandoned claims and constitutes a specific bona fide termination in favor of the prior prosecution of each abandoned claim.

  4. As a result orP2STEIN's wrongful conduct as alleged, has suffered and will continue ttkin% the following special damages:

  • a. o his reputation; dal anguish, embarrassment and anxiety; fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family;
  • d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities;
  • e. the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims.
  • c.

adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXIABAG Fourth Amended Counterclaim Page 12 of 13

WHEREFORE, demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff, , having satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the assertion of a claim for punitive damages and having been granted leave of ,sen such a CI claim does hereby also assert a claim for punitive damages.

Counter/plaintiff, further demands trial by j

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy kfOregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 2013.

JACK ≤C OLA Flo ifia ar No.: 169440 E-mail: jsx(iseircylaw.com ondary E-mail(s): mep@searcylaw.corn earcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9451 Attorney for J.

adv. Epstein Case No • 502009CA040800,OOOCMBAG Fourth Amended Counterclaim Page 13 of 13

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

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

Dee®FredHaddadLaw.com; C Fred Haddad, Esquire haddadfm®aol.com Fred Haddad, P.A. One Financial Plaza, Suite 2r2134/ r Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954)-467-6767 Fax: (954)-467-3599 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein

Marc S. Nurik, Esquire marc@nurilclaw.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

Lilly Ann M, 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

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire tonja@tonjahaddad.com; Debbie@Tonjahaddad.com Tonja Haddad, P.A. 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 "tort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ?S'Pne: (954)-467-1223 Fax: (954)-337-3716 ttomeys for Jeffrey Epstein

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff.

vs.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually. and individually.

Defendants.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 171E FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA

CASE NO. 502009CA040800X X X XMBAG

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEI ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNT -PLAINTIFF 0 TER I

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.11 herein liles his Answer and Ailirmat Cow aim. nd slates: , by and through his Ida Rules of Civil Procedure. to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

  • aim alleges an amout within tlx: jurisdictional is entitled to said amount.
  • I. Epstein admits that th i...)6 purview of the Court. but de 'es tl Epstein is will is an attorney
    • 3. E wledge as to la residential status, but admits that he practice law in the State of Florida. riles that he is a resident of Palm Beach County. but admits the legations in Paragraph 3.
    1. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agreement speak for themselves. To the extent that has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 4 of his Counterclaim, Epstein denies the allegations.

  1. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brought forth by purported victims, and that civil actions to which Epstein was a party settled, but is without knowledge as to any further investigation by federal law enforcement, any pending civil cases against Epstein by any purported victims, and la relationship with any other purported victims and therefore denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

  2. Epstein admits that, at certain times in the litigation, he asserted his ri ittinst self-incrimination as afforded to him by the Fifth Amcndmcnt to 1 ed States Constitution. Epstein denies the remaining allegations containe 1 raph 6 and demands strict proof thereof.

  3. Epstein denies Paragraph 7. except for the allc is involved in pending litigation in Federal Co Right's Act. n stating that Federal Crime Victims'

  4. Epstein denies each and every al IA, g n dontained in Paragrapgh ti and demands strict proof thereof.

  5. Epstein denies each id evVllegation contained in Paragrapgit 9 and demands strict proof thereof.

  6. Epstein c ies e h and every allegation contained in Paragrapgit tO and demands strict proo ol.

  7. admits that the causes of action asserted by him against in Epstein nitial Complaint arc listed in Paragraph 11 and its subparts. However. fails to either attach the Complaint to which he is referring or otherwise identify the Complaint from which he derives his assertion. To the extent that has

inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph I I of his Counterclaim. Epstein denies the allegations.

  1. Epstein admits that in his initial Complaint he asserted causes of action against 1= as specifically stated in Paragraph 11 and its subparts, but denies that he has ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against 1=as alleged in Paragraph 12. To the extent that Mhas inaccurately summarized or interpreted any ision of Epstein's -Complaint" in Paragraph 12 of his Counterclaim,' lips! dii ties, the allegations. Epstein further denies the remaining allegations con ' ragraph 12 and demands strict proof thereof.

  2. Epstein denies each and every allegation containgl.i aragrapgh 13. including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof

  3. Epstein denies each and every allegati J \ c ained hi Paragrapgh 14 and demands strict proof thereof.

IS. Epstein denies each and cves yid a ton contained in Paragrapgh 15 and demands strict proof thereof.

  1. Epstein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 16 and demands strict proof thereof.

  2. E de each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Pang . including its subparts. and demands strict proof thereof.

  3. admits that the Counterclaim alleges an amout within the jurisdictional purview of the Court, but denies that is entitled to said amount.

fails to attach a copy of Epstein's Complaint or even reference the version of the Complaint to which hi: refers in this allegation.

  1. Epstein is without knowledge as to residential status, but admits that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.

  2. Epstein Denies that he is a resident of Palm Beach County, but admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20.

  3. Epstein admits that he entered into a plea agreement that resulted in a felony conviction. Epstein further admits that the terms and conditions of the agree speak for themselves. To the extent that has inaccurately summari any provision thereof in Paragraph 21 of his Counterclaim. Epstein nterpreted allegations.

  4. Epstein admits that he was a party to civil actions brou victims. and that civil actions to which Epstein knowledge as to any further investigation by fed cases against Epstein by any purported victi purported victims and therefore denies rth by purported settled, but is without orcemcnt, any pending civil relationship with any other gations and demands strict proof thereof.

  5. Epstein admits that, at c in the litigation, he asserted his rights against self-incrimination as MT by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Epstei denies remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 and demands strict p f th

  6. E • de each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 24 and demands strict Rhereof.

  7. tein denies each and every allegation contained in Paragrapgh 25 and demands strict proof thereof.

  8. Epestein denies each and eery allegation contained in Paragrapgh 26 and demands strict proof thereof.

  9. Epstein admits that the causes of action asserted by him against ME in Epstein's initial Complaint are listed in Paragraph 27 and its subparts. However.a fails to either attach the Complaint to which he is referring or otherwisc identify the Complaint from which he derives his assertion. To the extent that has inaccurately summarized or interpreted any provision thereof in Paragraph 27 of his Counterclaim. Epstein denies the allegations.

  10. Epstein admits that in his initial Complaint he asserted causes against as specifically stated in Paragraph 27 and its subparts. b • Imit Epstein has ever asserted a cause of action for Civil Theft against F s as alleged in Paragraph 28. To the extent that has inaccu =rim(' or interpreted any provision of Epstein's "Complaint" in Para his Counterclaim .2 Epstein denies the allegations. Epstein denies the allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.

  11. Epstein denies each and Byer Lion contained in Paragraph 29. including its subparts. and demands strict

  12. Epstein denies each a Lvery allegation contained in Paragraph 30 and demands strict proof there ( c 1. s

  13. Ep • of. 0 each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 31 and demands strictAt

  14. te in admits that he has Amended his Complaint over the course of this titivation. and submits that while some counts were dismissed by the Court. tvidum prejudice. this constitutes neither abandonment of Epstein's claims nor a bona fide

fails to either attach the Complaint to his Counterclaim or reference the specific Complaint to which he is referring in Paragraph 28.

termination thereof. As such, Epstein denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32 and demands strict proof thereof.

  1. Epstein denies each and every allegation and claim for damages that is contained in Paragrapgh 33, including its subparts, and demands strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

For his First Affirmative Defense. Epstein states that ME claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is text under Rule 1.110 of the Florida Rules of civil Procedure. did not, Shaiih he ever be able to. assert the three requisites required to properly pi to wit: I) an illegal. improper. or perverted use of process after it issue • roper willful acts during the b f Process course of a prior action or Wier the filing I omplaint); 2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal. imp perverted process: and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Inns. v lea Mkt. Inc.. 36 So. 3d 909. 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis ad nina v. Nora Univ.. Inc.. 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Ha. 4th DCA 1987).

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ForOmS Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that Malicious fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as is required e 1.110 of the Florida Rules ofCivil Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a -bone-fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff' as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim. has not been, nor can it be, satisfied. See .IIanso rem-A-Car v. Mancusi, 632 So. 2d 1352. 1355 (Fla. 1994). The "original proceeding" to which refers in his Counterclaim is, in fact, the current litigation that is pending against him; to which there has not been an "ending in a manner indicating f innocence of the charges or allegations contained in the first suit." See Doss r. Bank of America, N.A.. 857 So. 2d 991. 994 (Fla. 5th DC'A 2003). See also Feder r. .-kkiatico. 459 So. 2d 449. 451 (Ha. 5th DCA 1984) (stating that Ilarkt of malicious prosecution requires, as an element, the prior termination ol aim and therefore malicious prosecution may not be brought as a counterellc ).

Indeed, it is well-settled law that an action for Malicious os2eution cannot be tiled until the original action is concluded, and that a Complaint that are dismissed without prejudice are not deemed a' crmination" in that party's favor. "Where dismissal is on technical gr for procedural reasons. or any other reason not consistent with the guilt of sed, it does not constitute a favorable determination." Union Oil ofCaljlorn L. ohn 468 So. 2d 349 (3d DCA 1985). Accordingly. fails aim upon which relief may be granted.

THIRD FIRMATIVE DEFENSE

For his Third Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that M Counterclaim fails to properly plead his damages as required as required under the Florida Rules of li Civil Ili durel. See Miami National Bank v. Nunez. 541 So. 2d 1259. 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (stating that a litigant cannot recover as damages his own time for participating in a litigation when counsel is engaged to represent him). further pleads damages for injury to his reputation, mental anguish, anxiety, and embarassment. which are impermissible and improperly plead.

Most importantly, however, Epstein submits that a has not, nor will he. suffer an damages as a result of any actions allegedly taken by Epstein. In fact. still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm =. Jaffe. Weissing. , Fistos, & Lehrman to disparage Epstein, to seek new clients on whose behalf he can sue Epstein, to attract additional plaintiffs for whom he can file suit, and to achieve notoriety with the press. See Composite Exhibit R attached here

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

For his Fourth Affirmative Defense. Epstein asserts that IC ed absolute immunity pursuant to the "Litigation Privilege" because at all t • tis actions were connected with. relevant to. and material to. his cause Litigation Privilege protects actions taken that onally tied to the judicial proceeding. and "arises immediately upon th, of any act required or permitted by law in the due course of the judicial pn or us necessarily preliminary thereto." Pridovich it htkorick 598 d j cSo. S tvt) 1992). Epstein has not taken any action "outside the context of '' protxxxling. such as...actions extrinsic to the litigation." &white v. Kiep . 2011 WL 1814665, p.*3 (S.D. Fla. 20111 (citing to American Not e1c- e r & arm of Florida. Inc. v. Guarantee Title & Trost CO .. 748 So. 2d 1054. C1 ' )(I: 4th DCA 1999)); See also, Monte/u v. Memorial Medical (*enter. . So. 2d 1266. 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). against . The

fendant specifically reserves the right herein to amend these defenses and plead other affirmative defenses that may become known during his continuing investigation of this action and during discovery in this case.

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served,

via electronic and US Mail, to all parties on the attached service list, this July 31, 2012.

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 176737

Tonja Haddad, PA

524 South Andrews Avenue

Suite 200N

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

954.467.1223

954.337.3716 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY

SERVICE LIST

CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OOCXMBAG

Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Jack Goldberger. Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss. PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401

Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301

ElJaffe Weissing Fistos Le 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fon Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Lilly Ann Esq. C LS Law Firm Four Sonsons Tower 15th Floor 1441 Brickell nuctiliv Miami. Flori 131

Go

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 50 2009CA040800XXXXXXMB AG
Complex Litigation, Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1201

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

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
[REDACTED] S, [REDACTED] S,
Individually, and L.M. Individually,

Defendants.

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF [REDACTED] S, 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] S, 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
503 Banyan Boulevard
Suite 400
5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Phone: 561.842.2820

6 and
7 JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
8 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
9 250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
10 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5012
Phone: 561.659.8300

11 and
12 On behalf of the Plaintiff:
13 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
14 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
15 Hauser 520
16 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Phone: 617.496.2020
17 On behalf of the Defendant:
18 JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
19 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA,
BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
210 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
20 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: 561.686.6300

21 ALSO PRESENT:
22 Jeffrey Epstein
23 [REDACTED] Kozak, Videographer
24 Prose Reporting Services

<<INDEX START>>

[REDACTED]

EXAMINATION DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT
CONTINUED EXAMINATION OF
[REDACTED] J [REDACTED] S, ESQUIRE

BY MR. CRITTON 151

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ 211
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF'S EX. 2 COMPLAINT 239
PLAINTIFF'S EX. 3 JULY 22, 2009 276
FACSMILE

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the record
3 at 1:54 p.m. Volume 2.

4 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. CRITTON:

6 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], when we broke, we were
7 talking a little bit about, we were talking about
8 [REDACTED] Rush and different, many people that you had
9 spoken with and you said you had spoken with
10 Mr. Rush approximately five times, correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. With regard to Mr. Rush, did you ever
13 provide him with any documents?

14 A. I don't believe so.

15 Q. Did you tell Mr. Rush, did you EVER advise
16 or did Mr. Rush ever ask you who your clients were,
17 I mean not by name but as to how your clients
18 factored into any of the conversations that you were
19 having?

20 A. I don't remember that.

21 Q. Do you recall discussing with Mr. Rush
22 Ghislaine Maxwell? Or in fact, let me ask it this
23 way: Did you talk with Mr. Rush about Ghislaine
24 Maxwell in any way?

1 (Pages 148 to 151)

(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506

Electronically signed by cynthia [REDACTED] (601-051-976-2934)
Electronically signed by cynthia [REDACTED] (601-051-976-2934)
Electronically signed by cynthia [REDACTED] (601-051-976-2934)

A. I'm not sure. ' Q. Why would you -- did any of your clients claim or have any of your clients claimed to have any contact with Ghislaine Maxwell at all? A. That is something that certainly calls for attorney-client privilege and not something that I am going to be answering today. Q. With regard to at least you have attended the deposition of both Jane Doe and of LM, comet? 3.0 A. Yes. Q. Okay. And have you heard them reference Ghislaine Maxwell during the course of those depositions? A. No. Q. Would it be a correct statement that none of the three of your clients -- let's take a look at the two that have testified. Both of the two that have testified, Jane Doe and L.M. have testified that they did not ever take, travel with or were transported in any way by Mr. Epstein, correct? 23. A. No, that is incorrect. Q. Okay. Did, who, which? A. I believe. Q. I am sorry? A. I guess the transcript will speak for itself.

1 I don't lc,ra sub, their specific - Q. Is it your belief that Jane Doe ever traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane? MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, is limited to the testimony - MR. CRITTON: Correa MR. SCAROLA: -- that ILs ban ttllau7 MR. CRITTON: Correct. THE WITNESS: No. I do no'fbelieve she testified that she traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane. BY MR- CRITTON: Q. All right And same would be true with L.M., she did net testify that she traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane, true? A. I believe that's true as well. Q. ca. Are you aware of any other information from any other source that either Jane Doe or LM. traveled on Mr. Epstein's plane? A. No. Q. Did you, did you indicate to — well, let me strike that Did you tell Mr. Rush that none of your clients had ever traveled with Mr. Epstein on his plane or any, on his plane or with him in any fashion, in any other manner? / 1141"/S4r2 tion

  1. women on the plane to have sex with them, what information did you have that was the basis for that claim at that time? MR SCAROIA: I am going to object to the form of the question. It assumes facts not in evidence. It has no proper predicate. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Mr. RR did you have Ghislaine Maxwell sery in is case with a subpoena? A. Yes. Q. For what purpose? I mean, obviously to take her deposition. A. Exactly, to take her deposition. Q. All right. Do you, is she neither, would you agree that neither Jane Doe nor L.M. have testified to any, that they had any connection whatsoever with Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Yes, I would agree. Q. And what, what was, what is the purpose; that is, with regard to your three clients and only your three clients is they -- what connection if any, did Ghislaine Maxwell have to those individuals? MR. SCAROLA: Objection, work-product. Instruct you to not answer.

A I don't remember that subject coming up in the conversations with Mr. Rush Had he asked -- I, I don't tananbcr that conversation. Q. Yotire not denying it. You are just saying you don't remember it or we you — A. Correct. Q. -- saying it didn't happen? A. No. lam saying I just don't remember. Q. Did you, did you tell Mr. Rush that Mr. Epstein had transported females on his plane for the purposes of having sex with other individuals? Q. Well, doeini:twhkny know. A I just don't remember. IS Q. If Mr. Rush wouldtestify that you told 16 hint that other females had traveled on Mr. Epstein's plane and had had sex during the time they were on the planes, why' would you have had that discussion with him? '. A. /Vete asking a hypothetical if I said that why newld hive I have said that? , Q, Wall, let me rephrase it this way: With Mr. Rush, if I asked you to assume that he would '.testify that you, you told him about the transportation, that Mr. Epstein transported other

1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2 Q. When you originally started working with 3 the Rothstein firm, did you have any discussions 4 with Mr. Rothstein regarding how your cases would be 5 funded; that is, your personal, your personal injury 6 PIERS and specifically the cases relating to 7 Mr. Epstein? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay. With regard to, prior to taking 10 your cases to, prior to starting at RRA, you were 11 responsible for the funding of your personal injury 12 cases or any contingency fee case, correct? 13 A. Right 14 Q. And I assume you had either your own 15 personal funds or you had a line of credit or both? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. And when you came to RRA and you brought 18 the cases with you; that is, the personal injury 19 cases and as well, the Epstein cases, were you 20 reimbursed for the costs that you had already 21 expended thus far on those cases? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you request that you be reimbursed? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And with, to whom was the request made?

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Directly to Scott Rothstein. Q. Was that at the ten minute meeting that you had? A. Yes. Q. At BOVA? A. Yes. Q. And what did he say? A. No problem. Q. He said he would reimburse you A. Correct. Q. And did that, in fact, take place? A. No. Q. And how did you attempt to get reimbursed for the costs that you had thus far incurred on your personal injury cases including Mr. Epstein's case when you went, when you started at RRA? A. What do you mean? Q. Well, you said that Mr. Rothstein agreed in the ten minute conversation that RRA would reimburse those costs? A. Correct. Q. Yong:Ito RRA in April of '09, and I assume you had to ask someone and say, look, I had a conversation with Scott Rothstein. He said he would reimburse my costs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I didn't do that. Q. You didn't. Did you choose not to do that? A. No. 1,1, the statement was made to me by Scott Rothstein that the costs would be reimbursed. And I anticipated that the costs would be reimbursed. I was there for a fairly short period of time and 1 didn't know Scott Rothstein personally. So I didn't go to him additionally to tell him something that we already had a meeting of the minds about. Q. Well, how much in costs did you have outstanding at the time from your cases, including the Epstein cases when you went to the firer, RRA, in April of '09? A. I don't {mow the total. Q. Was it S1,0001( Was it $50,000? Was it $100,000? A. More than 100. Q. And did you have that both from, was it, the debt, .was that comprised of both your own money and tur well as LOC. line of credit money through • bear? ,Was :More than 150? . I'm not sure.

25 ti 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Was it someplace between 100 and $200,000 your best estimate? A. That is my best estimate. Q. Did you fond that to be a significant amount of money? A. Of course. Q. Okay. And you said you were at RRA for only a short period of tune. In fact, you were there April, May, June, July, August, September, October. You were there seven months, true? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And at no time, even though Mr. Rothstein said he would reimburse those funds or the fun would reimburse those funds to you, at no time during those seven months which you have described as a short period of time, did you ever make a request that you be reimbursed; is that correct? A. I never made a, well, I don't lamw the process for getting reimbursed, but I never made a fonnal request. 1 said it to, at least to Adler on several occasions. And it was ways told to me, don't worry about it the firm is growing; there is a lot of things to deal with right now; he operates under the system of fairness; you wilt reimbursed.

1 And obviously nobody expected the ending 2 to the law firm that ultimately occurred.

3 Q. With regard to the case, I assume you 4 settled a couple of personal injury cases daring the seven months you were there, yes?

6 A. Yes, you assume that

7 Q. That's correct? Let me ask the question. 8 Did you settle any contingency fee cases during the 9 sevens months that you were at the RRA firm?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And when you settled those cases did you, 12 and they closed, they were settled through, did you 13 have any control of the trust account?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Okay. Settlement monies come in on. a 16 personal injury ease. What did you do with the 17 money once the, once the client had endorsed the 18 check?

19 A. I, I didn't personally do anything with the 20 money. It was not handled by me.

21 Q. Okay. Were you there --

22 A. That's why I'm confused. Did I settle the 23 case? I mean, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm settled 24 personal injury cases while I was there. There were no 25 cases that were solely my cases. They were firm cases.

1 A. Well, you've thrown a lot of things in there. 2 Travel expenses come back with your receipts, hand them 3 over to, I would hand them over to my secretary. And 4 she would get them to the appropnate place in the 5 machine known as Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. And in my 6 next -- and I would get a check, !believe. 7 Q. All right. How about depositions, I mean 8 during the time that we, we took depositions from 9 the time you were at RRA, transcripts were ordered 10 of depositions. They were expedited of various 11 hearings. You took trips. You took a trip to Now 12 York to take the deposition of Matt Eistein, 13 correct; all those things occurred?

14 A. Yes, all of those thingspattered.

15 Q. So, when you wouldget a bill in for the 16 trip for to go up and see MarkEpstein, or to take 17 Mark Epstoin's deposition, you had travel costs 18 associated with that and you had plane fan, 19 taxicab, hotel, whatever else you had, correct?

20 A. Hal costs associated with that.

21 Q. All right. And when you met with Mr. 22 Rothstein initially, what was your understanding or 23 did you have an understanding as to how costs would 24 '.be handled; that is, how they would be paid on cases 2 ftlityou brought to the firm?

1 Q. Let me rephrase the question. You 2 brought, you brought cases to the firm,

3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. Of any of the cases that you 5 you settle those cases?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Okay. So, you never had in nstan --SO 8 there was never a set of circumstances whore you 9 would have been reimbursed for costs as a result of 10 a settlement?

11 A. That's correct

12 Q. All right. And, and so during the seven 13 months that you wens there, you were never 14 reimbursed a nickel of the one to $200,000 that you 15 had outstanding in costs?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. All right. With regard to the costs that 18 were to be incurred for prosecuting the cases, 19 specifically the Epstein cases, what was your 20 understanding — was that ever discussed with 21 Mr. Rothstein at the ten-minute meeting?

22 A. Repeat that Pm sorry.

23 Q. Sure. How were, how were costs 24 investigation costs, deposition costs, travel 25 expenses to be reimbursed?

A. It was unspoken but I had some understanding just based on logic.

Q. Separate and apart from logic, did anybody tell you that you had; that is, that RRA would pay all of the costs associated with prosecution of the Epstein cases?

A. Did anybody tell me? No.

Q. Okay. were you ever required w draw against either your personal funds or your personal LOC after you started with RRA to Nod the Epstein cases?

A. I don't know how to answer your question, Mr. Critical, because if I were to go out of town and purchase a plane ticket, yeah, I would purchase that personally and then I would be reimbursed. III ordered a deposition transcript, which is a totally different category, that gets billed to the firm. I never see the bill or anything else. So, you're just throwing a bunch of things together that don't necessarily go together. I am trying my best for you.

Q. No, that's fine. Commonly in a personal injury dosing, you would see the recover, you would see a list of the costs. The costs would include court reporters, investigation fees, subpoenas, OUT of that nature, coned?

1 A. I have seen than before, yes, sir. 2 Q. Okay. And as well them would be 3 reimbursable expenses such as when you went to New 4 York and took Mark Epstein's deposition. You, you 5 paid for the expense up front but, in fact, it was 6 then reimbursed by the fum, correct? 7 A. Now we're specifically, specifically talking 8 about Mark Epstein's deposition, yes, that, what you 9 just said is correct. 10 Q Okay. Not only was the, and if I 11 understand your testimony is the deposition was paid 12 for directly by the firm With regard to your 13 travel, any hotel, other expenses that you had, you 14 put in a request for reimbursement and the thin 15 would reimburse you? 16 A Correct. 17 Q. All right. And with regard to those 18 costs, you said you and Mr. Rothstein never had a 19 discussion about that; is that =MCI? 20 A. Correct 21 Q. All right. But you did speak with 22 Mr. Adler about how costs would be handled on your 23 cases including Mr. Ppstein's case after you started 24 with RRA? 25 A. Correct.

1 Q. Okay. And is he the only one who 2 explained what the procedure was? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what did he tell you? Well, 5 ask you this: Did be tell you what; that 6 the firm would pay for all of the 7 either costs and/or reimbursements for coats a were incurred in prosecuting the Riess and 9 any other files that you had? 10 A. Can you split this qtatelaelzup so that we're 11 not talking about reimburse:neat and costs and things 12 like that. 13 Q. Sure. With regard to costs such as 14 depositions 7 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. east reporters, court reporter fees, 17 video depositions, transcripts of hearing, whether 18 they were expedited or v./tether they were asked on a 19 Mull= basis? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. Where would the -- who was responsible for 22 paying those bills? 23 A. The bills would, to my to the best of my 24 knowledge would be billed to the law firm of Rothstein 25 Rosenfeldt Adler, and it would be their financial —wee

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 responsibility to pay thoisoligle. Q. And is that who Adler told you? A. Yes. Q. Did you that with anyone else in the firm 1 Adler? A. .1 Adler. Q. So, if the bill cans in for one of those types of costs, you would give to your secretary or would she handle it automatically? A. I never would see the bill. Why would it come into my name? It just didn't do — that never happened. It was billed to Rothstein RosenfeldrAdler. Q. So, you would never_ see the bill that came in? A. Correct. even if it v."; a RICA attention Brad, you wouklift see that? Sire wring that happened, attention, Brad lsstill never raw it No, I never saw a bill to my ,t8thection right now the whole time I was at Rothstein Roeenfeldt Adler. Q. Did Mr. Rothstein ever discuss with you t er there would be a budget associated with how money you could spend on a particular case? A. No.

3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Did anyone at the firm ever talk to you about whether or not there would be a budget associated with how much you could spend on an Epstein case or any personal injury case? A. No. Q. In terns of authorization, if you wanted to order a deposition expedited or if you wanted to pay for a specific expense, whether it was an outside investigator or to send an investigator to a location, whose decision was that? Is that you and you alone to incur that cost? A. Which question do you want me to -- you asked a bunch of things there that some of them may have been my decision. Other parts of that would obviously be somebody else's. But you're throwing five or six items in there and you want me to give you an answer. Q. Let me break it them down. With regard to any costs that you wanted to incur, incur relating to a Jeffrey Epstein matter, was there an authorization process; that is, did you have to get someone's okay before you could spend X amount of dollars? A. No. Q. Okay. It was, and who told you that you never had to gel an approval for any expense

1 associated with the Jeffrey Epstein case?
2 A. I didn't say that anybody did. So, no,
3 nobody, nobody.
4 Q. You could just spend whatever money you
5 wanted to in prosecuting your cases; is that
6 correct?
7 A. No, I didn't say that either.
8 Q. What was the procedure then?
9 A. That if I was at a deposition and there was a
10 need in my judgment for the transcript to be expedited
11 then I would order it expedited and nobody ever told me
12 that they had a problem with my judgment as to those
13 things. And not as to those things. As to that thing
14 which we were talking about which right now is
15 expediting deposition transcripts.
16 Q. With regard to -- so any, how about an
17 expense associated with hiring, with either
18 directing -- well, let me strike that. With regard
19 to Epstein, did, were you ever required or did you
20 ever hire outside investigators to do work
21 associated with the Epstein case?
22 By outside I mean someone who was not an
23 employee of RRA and now I mean dealing with the time
24 that you were at RRA
25 A. Right. And your question is did I ever hire

1 an outside investigator to perform work on Jeffrey
2 Epstein's case?
3 Q. Correct?
4 A. The answer is no.
5 Q. Were, were all the investigations that
6 were done during the time that you were employed by
7 RRA, were they done by in-house investigators?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Well, if you wanted investigation done on
10 Mr. Epstein, how would you go about authorizing that
11 or directing that that be done?
12 A. I would ask one of the investigators to do it.
13 Q. So, you would direct the specific
14 investigator?
15 A. Yeah. There were plenty of times where I
16 directed the specific investigator. I want you to talk
17 to this witness or so-and-so, yes, just like you would
18 in any case.
19 Q. In this particular instance associated
20 with Mr. Epstein, what investigators worked on
21 Mr. Epstein's case during the time you were at RRA?
22 A. If you want an exclusive list, I don't know.
23 Q. I want to know?
24 A. I can tell you Michael Fisten did because I
25 communicated with him directly.

1 Q. Did you meet, did you know Mr. Fisten
2 before you started working at RRA?
3 A. Same answer, no.
4 Q. No. All right. And Mr. Fisten, did you
5 direct Mr. Fisten to do investigations in Martha's
6 Vineyard?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you direct Mr. Fisten to do
9 investigations in California?
10 A. I directed Mr. Fisten to interview people and
11 ultimately it was learned that they lived in California.
12 Q. And did Mr. Fisten go to California to
13 interview those individuals?
14 A. To the best of my knowledge he did.
15 Q. Okay. And who did he go and interview?
16 MR. SCAROLA: That is work-product and I
17 instruct you not to answer.
18 BY MR. CRITTON:
19 Q. Did Mr. Fisten interview a person by the
20 name of Michael Sanka (phonetic)?
21 MR. SCAROLA: That is work-product and I
22 instruct you not to answer.
23 MR. CRITTON: Did Mr. Fisten interview a
24 individual by the name of Michael [REDACTED]
25 (phonetic)?

1 MR. SCAROLA: That is work-product and I
2 instruct you not to answer --
3 MR. CRITTON: Mr. Fisten --
4 MR. SCAROLA: -- except to the extent as
5 may have already been disclosed to the defense
6 in any of the three cases that are currently
7 pending. Any and all questions about
8 investigative work will meet with the same
9 objection and same instruction.
10 BY MR. CRITTON:
11 Q. Did you direct Mr. Fisten that he could
12 represent that he was an agent of the FBI in
13 interviewing individuals in California?
14 A. Of course not.
15 Q. Did you -- and if in fact Mr. Fisten
16 represented he was an agent of the FBI, you would
17 find that reprehensible, true?
18 A. This is some hypothetical question that I do
19 not believe exists.
20 Q. I'm asking you to assume that Mr. Fisten
21 represented that he was an agent of the FBI. You
22 would find that type of conduct by the investigator
23 to be inappropriate, correct?
24 A. I'm not going to render an opinion on a
25 hypothetical that doesn't exist.

1 Q. So, you're refusing to answer that 2 question? 3 A. You're asking me about my definition of 4 reprehensible as it pertains to a specific hypothetical 5 that you've just created 6 Q. Let me ask you -- 7 A. Now, you want me to try to analyze that 8 particular hypothetical and tell you whether it meets 9 the definition of reprehensible? 10 Q. I will let you — if Mr. Platen, if I ask 11 you to assume that Mr. Fisten represented to a 12 witness out in California that he was an agent or 13 working for the FBI, would you find that conduct 14 appropriate by Mr. Fisten? 15 MR. SCAROLA: And I will tell you that you 16 are not obliged to answer hypothetical 17 questions. 18 THE WITNESS: And therefore I am not going 19 to answer that question. 20 BY MR. CM-ETON: 21 Q. If Mr. Pistol represented that he was 22 associated with the Miami-Dade Police Departnem, 23 Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find 24 that conduct inappropriate? 25 MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Could he is it your — A. How would I know associate, he may have been? Q. Let me ask you this, was he employed by the Miami-Dade Police Department in addition to RRA during the time he worked there? A. To the best of my knowledge, no. Q. Did with regard to Mr. Epstein's cases was there any type of cost account set up for, for them? A. I don't know. Q. Could you access any of the financial files within the RRA firm? A. No. Q. Could you access any files that were associated with your spxific, excuse me, clients or your specific case such as if you wanted to know how much in costs had been incurred by Mr. Epstein — on Jane Doe's case Vdtik at the RRA turn, could you request that, couldyou access that information? A. I da'r't Imovi: Q. - Did you ever try to access that information? Q. Many time did you request that anybody provide you copies of what the coats were associated

1 also observe with regard to each of the 2 hypothetical questions that you are asked that 3 they are incomplete. And without knowing all 4 of the surrounding circumstances, it would be impossible for any witness to pass judgment 6 upon what may have occurred. /2 7 BY MR. CRITTON: 8 Q. So. Mr.— would it be a correct statement 10 Mr. Fisten was not an agent, waa S I agent 9 at least as you understood it, Mr. that 11 during the time that he worked for RRA? 12 A. You're asking me was he an FBI agent or did he 13 work for RRA He worked for RRA 14 Q. Correct He was not an FBI agent, true, 15 to the best of your lmowledge during the time he 16 worked for RRA 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. I am not talking about any other time 19 period right now. 20 A. Okay. Then the answer is he was not an FBI 21 agent at the time he was working for BRA 22 Q. During the time he worked for RRA he as 23 well was not associated with Miami-Dade Police 24 Department, correct? 25 A don't 1010W that.

1 with Mr. Epstein's case& 2 A. No. 3 Q. Since you left the firm have you requested 4 any type of detailed billing or cost analysis such as to the cost of any of the costs that were 6 incurred on any of Mr. Epstein's cases? 7 A. Of course. 8 Q. Okay. And did you receive those costa? 9 Did you receive that information? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And what costs have been incurred in the 12 cases, in the Epstein cases associated up — let me 13 strike that. What costs, what is the total amount 14 of costs that were incurred in the Epstein cases 15 during the time that those files existed in the RRA 16 firm? 17MR- SCAROLA: If you're able to answer 18 that question with regard only as to amount 19 without specifying any of the specific cost 20 expenditures, then I think we can answer that 21 question only as to amount 22 THE WITNESS: And the question as to the 23 aggregate in the three cases? 24 MR. CRTTTON: Correct. 25 THE WITNESS: Because I can't delineate

1 for you.

2 MR. CRITTON: Your best estimate.

3 THE WITNESS: Okay. I believe more than

4 $300,000.

5 BY MR. CRITTON:

6 Q. With regard to, if investigation was done

7 on, on a Epstein case, was the investigator charged,

8 that is for his time, as an example Mr. Fisten, if

9 he did work in California would his time, I'm not

10 talking about his expenses, would that be billed as

11 a cost to the file?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. On the cost that you received, well, let

14 me strike that. If I understood it, up to 300,000

15 approximately $300,000 that's been spent on the

16 Epstein file, were you able to look --

17 A. It would be more than that. I am just saying

18 it's at least $300,000.

19 Q. Something between three and $400,000,

20 could it --

21 A. Something that I would say is definitely

22 between 300 and $500,000, but I'm not sure. It could be

23 301. It could be 450. I really don't know.

24 Q. When was the last time that you looked at

25 that ledger or the printout associated with the

1 firm had you, you had spent some of your own money

2 and/or LLC money on the files; is that correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Approximately how much is that amount?

5 A. I'm, I'm not sure. I think as you're aware

6 most of the depositions and costly work that was done on

7 the files happened to have been done during that time

8 period for all of the respective cases or claims against

9 Mr. Epstein during that time period of last summer of

10 2009.

11 Q. All right. But in terms of your costs

12 prior to coming to RRA, what's your best estimate of

13 the costs that you have paid either out of pocket or

14 are responsible to a bank to repay?

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. More than 25,000, less than 25,000?

17 A. I'm not sure.

18 Q. More than 100,000?

19 A. No.

20 Q. More than 50,000?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. That's a record obviously you could pull

23 up, correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. All right. Now, with regard to, prior to

1 Epstein files?

2 A. I have never looked at the printout.

3 Q. Okay. How, how do you know what is amount

4 is then? That is how do you have the estimate of it

5 being between 350, I'm sorry between 300 and

6 $500,000, the cost associated with Epstein?

7 A. I asked a paralegal within my current firm for

8 the total amount of costs on these three cases that is

9 being claimed by Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. And I

10 remember the cost number in the aggregate being given to

11 me reflecting an amount what I just told you.

12 Q. Have you requested a copy of the -- let me

13 strike that. Did she say she had, that is did

14 she -- did you actually receive a document that

15 reflects the breakdown of the costs from the

16 trustee?

17 A. I personally have not seen that.

18 Q. Okay. Has your firm received it?

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. I assume -- would it be a correct

21 statement that the three to $500,000 is, includes

22 only the time between April of '09 and October of

23 '09 when you were with the firm?

24 A. It's a good question. I, I believe so.

25 Q. And approximately, prior to joining the

1 your coming to RRA, had there been any investigation

2 work that you had done on the Epstein files -- and

3 let me strike that. Had you hired or retained an

4 investigator to do any work for you on the Epstein

5 files prior to coming to RRA?

6 A. I don't think so.

7 Q. All right.

8 A. It would have been around that time. I don't

9 remember whether the initial investigator was hired by

10 me from my previous, from my [REDACTED] firm or was hired by

11 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. I can't say.

12 Q. Who was the first investigator that you

13 believe was involved in investigating the Epstein

14 cases? Just a name not topic?

15 MR. SCAROLA: Work-product, instruct you

16 not to answer.

17 BY MR. CRITTON:

18 Q. Was the first person that was retained as

19 an investigator someone who ultimately became

20 employed by RRA?

21 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that.

22 THE WITNESS: No.

23 BY MR. CRITTON:

24 Q. The, the person who you hired to -- and by

25 investigation I mean something other than looking up

1 an address to serve a subpoena or, or doing some
2 minimal background.
3 A. I am glad you clarified because I am using
4 that same definition.
5 Q. All right. So, it's, it's your best
6 recollection that you did or did not hire an
7 investigator to do real investigative work with,
8 associated with Mr. Epstein prior to joining RRA?
9 A. I believe I did, but it was after a time when
10 I had, I was contemplating or at least to myself had
11 committed to going to RRA. So, it was within that time
12 period I believe that I hired that person prior to RRA.
13 Q. When you then went to -- now you had
14 committed to go to RRA or at least mentally
15 committed to go to RRA. As soon as you started with
16 RRA, did you terminate the services of that
17 investigator?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did that investigator continue to do work?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Has, does he or she or it continue
22 to do work today for you?
23 A. No. On Mr. Epstein's case you're asking,
24 right?
25 Q. Yes, sir.

1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. For how long a time period did that
3 person continue to do the work before it got
4 transferred to Mr. Fisten or other investigators?
5 A. Question doesn't make sense.
6 Q. Okay. How long did the investigator that
7 you may have hired prior to joining RRA work on the
8 Epstein files before you ceased that work after you
9 started working for Epstein in April of '09? I'm
10 sorry, for RRA in '09.
11 A. The person was hired in either March or April
12 of 2009, which is why I can't say with absolute
13 certainty whether I was at RRA or not. And that person
14 continued to do investigative work in some capacity
15 probably throughout the entire time that I was at RRA.
16 Q. Were all of the bills for that
17 investigator paid by RRA?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. With regard to the payments for the
20 investigators -- well, let me strike that. Who
21 other than Mr. Fisten from an investigator, from an
22 internal investigator at RRA employee worked on
23 doing investigation on the Epstein files?
24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
25 instruction.

1 MR. CRITTON: You are claiming
2 work-product?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Yes.
4 BY MR. CRITTON:
5 Q. The investigators, did you understand them
6 to be salaried employees of RRA?
7 A. I really have no idea.
8 Q. Did you ever ask them?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you know whether the, do you have any
11 knowledge as to whether the investigators kept time
12 records?
13 A. I do not have that knowledge.
14 Q. In terms of when an investigator would
15 come back -- well, do you know how the investigators
16 were paid?
17 A. With money.
18 Q. From RRA?
19 A. I would presume. Totally speculation.
20 Q. Would the RRA -- were the investigators
21 for RRA bonused?
22 A. I have no idea.
23 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Fisten what
24 his financial compensation was associated with RRA?
25 A. No.

1 Q. Did, did you ever promise either
2 Mr. Fisten or any other investigator that when the
3 case settled, they would get a bonus from an Epstein
4 case?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Fisten ever inquire of you
7 as to whether he would get a bonus if, in fact, the
8 cases on which he worked including the Epstein cases
9 settled for a favorable verdict or result came in?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you have any understanding from either
12 your conversations from Mr. Rothstein whether
13 investigators were bonused based upon the work that
14 they did?
15 A. Excuse me?
16 Q. Did you ever have an understanding from
17 Mr. Rothstein that, that investigators would be
18 bonused from cases on which they worked based upon
19 their work product or their contribution?
20 A. No. I had no understanding.
21 Q. Did you, from -- I assume you've read a
22 number of the news reports associated with
23 Mr. Rothstein and the implosion of the firm?
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. I assume you have seen a number of them?

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 BY MR. CRITTON: 2Q. Have you directed, did you ever direct - 3this is the investigators during the time you 4at RRA and that's the question you're chitin 5privilege over, conect? MR. - \ / ..., SCAROLA: 1 am claiming Ihraprtyllege wit sato re noany action that was ta/cen by Mr or at Mr. Edward's direction in — N: Tell you what, I will withdraw the last question. MR SCAROLA: — in connection with the investigation in prosecution of the claims against Mr. Epstein. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Let me make my question clear, Mr. Edwards. With regard to your investigators, you gave direction with regarding the Epstein cases, during the time you were with RRA did you ever tell them or direct them to go through Mr. Epstein's trash? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Did you ever direct the investigators to go through the trash of the lawyers who were

A. What do you mean by a number? Q. More than one. A. Yes, I have seen more than one. Q. Have you seen articles were it's alleged that investigators that were employed by Rothstein, by RRA would go through the garbage of prospective Defendants to search for incriminating or favorable, aincriminating evidence against the Defendant or favorable evidence for aPlaintiff who might be working or who might be aclient of the firm? A. I have not seen an article saying that. I think I have heard your client say that before. Q. Separate and apart - A. Right. Q. You don't have to rely on anything my client has said before, the testimony MR. SCAROLA: I am sure we won't. MR. CRITTON: I am confident of that. BY MR CRITTON: Q. In terms of, were you aware from the articles, did you see in the article — let me strike that. Did you ever direct your investigators to go through Mr. Epstein's trash? MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object. work-product, attorney-client privilege.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1representing Mr. Epstein including myself? 2MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 3 instruction. 4 BY MR CRAYON: Q. Did you ever? MIL SCAROLA: Mr. will not answer any questions regarding whilkthd or didn't do. MR. CR1TTON: I understand. I just want to make it certain it's for the court on some of these issues. MR. SCAROLA: Well, for the court I am telling you he is not going to answer any of those questions. And Maiming to ask them in light of the fact that we have told you and made it clear the scope of ow assertion of privilege serves no useful purpose. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Mr. at any time, did you -- well, let me strike . id you ever direct the investigators to, during the time you were at RRA, to condom a surveillance on Mr. Epstein's property? /sibMR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same traction.

3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Since the time you have left RRA in yout current firm, have you conducted surveillance on Mr. Epstein's property? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. BY MR CRITION: Q. Have you instructed anyone, either of the in-house investigators to conduct surveillance of Mr. Epstein's property? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Have you authorized investigators employed by RRA, either employees of the firm or an outside investigation firm, to walk around the perimeter of Mr. Epstein's home on or about March 17th of 2010? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction. THE WITNESS: What's the date? MR. CM-TON: March 17th 2010. MR. SCAROLA: st. Day. Did you employ any leprechauns THE WITNESS: Actually --

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/source-drafts-5c3b90027976c53102905cdc66b5b007851fd5f55b9487a4e8ad966c0fe93b40/.