Draft: efta02772538

*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK.***¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:
2 Q. With regard to the, with regard to the
3 investigators, with regard to the investigation
4 bills that would come in from outside investigators,
5 specifically the one that you -- well, let me strike
6 that.
7 The investigator that you hired before you
8 went to RRA, I think you testified that bill was
9 paid by RRA, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. And in terms of the
12 investigators who were employed by RRA for whatever
13 investigation you directed them to do, those
14 individuals were also paid from funds from RRA,
15 correct?
16 A. During the time period when I was at RRA
17 you're asking about specifically, correct?
18 Q. Correct.
19 A. Then the answer is, yes.
20 Q. Was there any specific cost account that
21 was set up for Mr. Epstein's cases?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Did you ever speak with the --
24 A. Again we're talking about the time period at
25 RRA?¶

1 Q. Okay. Well, if you could authorize any
2 expenditure that you wanted and nobody ever told you
3 not to, that you couldn't spend the particular
4 money, what controls, if any, existed with regard to
5 monies spent on the Epstein cases?
6 A. The presupposition that you just created is
7 incorrect, so I cannot answer that question. You began
8 with I have no limit to how I can spend money and that
9 there is no regulation. I mean, that's just not true,
10 so I don't understand what to tell you.
11 Q. What limits if any did you have in
12 spending money in prosecuting Mr. Epstein's case?
13 A. We went through expediting transcripts and I
14 used my own judgment.
15 Q. I understand that.
16 A. If we have another specific example, I will
17 address it and I will tell you whether I had that
18 authority or somebody else may have had that authority.
19 But specifically related to expediting transcripts and
20 things involving depositions, ordering depositions, I
21 used my judgment and it was never questioned.
22 Q. Separate and apart from transcripts, if,
23 if -- you've testified that the expenditures for
24 costs that the firm or the trustee is seeking back,
25 at RRA is seeking back, is seeking relating to any¶

1 Q. At RRA
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. During the time you were at RRA did you
4 ever speak with the accounting department or the
5 accounting department ever call you to talk about
6 the amount of costs, assuming they were something
7 between 300 and $500,000 that were being expended on
8 Mr. Epstein files?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did, did anyone at the firm ever call you
11 to discuss the issue of the amount of costs between
12 300 and $500,000 that were being incurred to
13 prosecute Mr. Epstein's cases?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Who had checked -- did you have any
16 check-signing authority at RRA?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Who did sign the checks?
19 A. I don't know. I was --
20 Q. In terms of the, the work that was being
21 done or the, the work that was, that is the costs
22 that were being incurred including reimbursable
23 costs, did you understand that you had a, basically
24 an unlimited budget to prosecute those cases?
25 A. No.¶

1 recovery in any Epstein cases is between three and
2 $500,000, correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. All right. So, separate and apart from
5 expedited transcripts or video depositions or
6 serving subpoenas, that, there has to be, you know,
7 hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional
8 expenses that were associated with prosecuting
9 Mr. Epstein's cases, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And with regard to those types of
12 expenditures that are in the hundreds of thousands
13 of dollars, who authorized those types of
14 expenditures?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Well, you said that you used judgment
17 certainly with regard to transcripts. So, who, if,
18 if spending an extra two, three, $400,000 separate
19 and apart from transcripts, serving subpoenas is not
20 a limitless budget, how would you describe it; that
21 is, what controls if any did you have in prosecuting
22 the Epstein cases?
23 A. First, I haven't seen the delineation of that
24 amount and I don't know that we agree with Rothstein
25 Rosenfeldt Adler as to their costs, but that is what¶

11 (Pages 188 to 191)¶

(561) 832-7500¶

PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC.¶

(561) 832-7506¶

1 they'te claiming. I never juxtaposed that with what I 2 believe should be the proper amount. But beginning with 3 4 5 the fact that I do recognize that as the amount that they are claiming, I was not aware that the costs were that high.¶

6 9 10 11 12 13 14 The cases were firm cases paid for by the fine. I was simply an employee and I made judgment calls. If somebody had told me at any given time, we shouldn't serve these subpoenas, or we shouldn't take this deposition, I wouldn't have done it. Q. In fact, with regard to — well, let me ask you this Were any informants, did you authorize your investigators to hire informant, informants?¶

15 16 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction.¶

17 18 19 BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Did you authorize your investigators to do electronic eve's dropping?¶

20 21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same instruction.¶

22 23 24 BY MR. CRITTON: Q. You indicated that you were just an employee, correct?¶

25 A. Yes.¶

1 Q. Okay. In fact, you, on various documents 2 reflected that you were a partner of the firm, 3 correct?¶

4 A Yes, document, documents do reflect 5 title, of course, yeah. >¶

6 Q. And if I had asked fora card during thp 7 time that you started at RRA up until the time of 8 the implosion of the firm in late October of '09, 9 would your card have also reflected that you were a 10 partner of the firm?¶

11 A. I think you did request a card. I think 1 12 gave it to you and I believe that it did say partner on 13 it.¶

Q. And you would agree that at least up until the time of the implosion of RRA you held yourself out to the public, aril including other lawyers, as 17 being a pannier of RRA, true?¶

18 A. What do you mean by held myself out to the 19 public?¶

20 Q. You called yourself a partner. You didn't 21 say I'm an employee; I'm not a partner, correct? 22 You held yourself out to the public as being a 23 partner?¶

24 MR.. SCAROLA: I'm going to object to the 25 form of the question to the extent that it¶

1 suggests that those terms are mutually 2 exclusive.¶

3 THE WITNESS: That was a part of my answer 4 is that, I don't Imow —¶

5 Mk CRITTON: lam shocked to hear that.¶

6 THE WITNESS: I don't know that being an 7 employee means that you can't also be a 8 partner. There are equity partners and 9 non-equity partners to nearly every single 10 large firm, so I was a non-equity partner 11 otherwise known as a salaried employee. That's 12 just the way it was.¶

13 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

14 Q. But your card just reflected partner as 15 did your —¶

16 A. Rather than that whole script I just told you. 17 Q. Right Rattner than the qualifying 18 provisions. i"¶

19 A. Yes, you're right. The qualifying positions 20 didn't make the card.¶

21 Q. -With regard to the monies that was, that 22 ve5ebenigpaid by, by Rothstein, I'm sorry, by the 23 RP.A. finti RIC the costs -- let me strike that.¶

24 ,kpurIng the time that you were at the RRA firm, the 25klearn months that you were there from April through¶

A¶

H • the end of October, do you recall any significant 2 settlements that were coming into the film; that is, 3 that were publicized?¶

4 A. Do I recall significant settlements —¶

Q. Contd.¶

6 A. — coming into the firm that were publicized? 7 Q Correct?¶

8 A. I believe, I can't say with any degree of 9 specificity whether I remember anything that falls into 1 o all of those categories.¶

11 Q. Now, I forgot my question for a minute.¶

12 III understand your answer, and assuming I remember 13 my question, Mr. IM you don't recall any 14 significant settlements coming into the finn that¶

15 were, that were publicized either internally within 16 the firm or within the newspapers; is that a fair 17 statement?¶

18 A. Fair statement.¶

19 Q. Where did you think all of the money that 20 was coming from — let me strike that. At that time 21 how many lawyers were there in the Fort Lauderdale 22 office; that is, during the time you were there?¶

23 A. I don't know.¶

24 Q. Best estimate?¶

25 A. Seventy.¶

1 Q. Okay. And the support, how many floors
2 did RRA occupy in the Fort Lauderdale --
3 A. I believe six.
4 Q. And approximately how many square feet on
5 each floor?
6 A. I don't know. A lot.
7 Q. More than 10,000 square feet on each
8 floor?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. And what was the support staff at the time
11 that you were there approximately?
12 A. In quantity or quality?
13 Q. Quantity, the number of people.
14 A. I don't know. A lot of people.
15 Q. Did you do any hourly billing yourself at
16 all or were you strictly a contingency fee person?
17 A. 90 percent contingency.
18 Q. And with regard to the monies that were --
19 separate and apart from the Epstein, Epstein cases
20 where at least you now know that they cost between
21 three and $500,000, you were, I assume, incurring
22 other expenses on other cases, true?
23 A. True.
24 Q. All right. And where did you, where did
25 you think that the money was coming from; that is,¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:
2 Q. Where did you think the law firm -- let me
3 strike that. Did you ever discuss with anyone
4 whether it was from current cash that was being used
5 or whether they had a line of credit or both?
6 A. Didn't know.
7 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], did you come to learn that
8 investigators had, that investigators had gone to
9 Mr. Epstein's property on March 17th, 2010?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever authorize any investigators
12 to enter Mr. property (sic), Mr. Epstein's property
13 on March 17th, 2010?
14 MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Instruct you not
15 to answer on the basis of work-product
16 privilege.
17 BY MR. CRITTON:
18 Q. Let me just be clear. Are, are you aware
19 of any investigators who entered Mr. Epstein's
20 property on March 17th, 2010?
21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection as well as
22 attorney-client privilege and instruct you not
23 to answer.
24 BY MR. CRITTON:
25 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], did you authorize any¶

1 the source of the money to pay the extensive bills
2 that were being incurred on Epstein and other cases?
3 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the
4 extent the question calls -- excuse me, I'm
5 going to object because there is no proper
6 predicate to the question, and that is that it
7 was a matter that was ever given a thought by
8 Mr. [REDACTED].
9 MR. CRITTON: Is that form? Form is
10 adequate so you don't have to instruct him.
11 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: What's the question?
13 BY MR. CRITTON:
14 Q. What did you consider, what did you
15 believe was the cost; that is, the source of the
16 money that was used to be paying these extensive
17 costs that were being incurred in Epstein and other
18 cases?
19 MR. SCAROLA: Objection.
20 MR. CRITTON: Just of yours and yours
21 alone?
22 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, form and
23 compound.
24 THE WITNESS: The law firm.
25¶

1 investigators to trespass on Mr. Epstein's property
2 on March 17th of 2010?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
4 instruction.
5 BY MR. CRITTON:
6 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], did you authorize
7 investigators to hide in the bushes at Mr. Epstein's
8 house in order to take photographs of either
9 Mr. Epstein or any associated objects on his
10 property?
11 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
12 instruction.
13 BY MR. CRITTON:
14 Q. Mr. Epstein -- Mr. Epstein. Mr. [REDACTED],
15 do you know a lady name Christina Kitterman?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And who -- how do you know her?
18 A. She was a lawyer at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
19 when I was a lawyer at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.
20 Q. Did you have any dealings with her on any
21 of your cases?
22 A. None.
23 Q. What did you understand her area of
24 practice?
25 A. Never knew.¶

1 Q. Did you know an individual by the name of
2 [REDACTED]?¶

3 A. Yes.¶

4 Q. Okay. And who is Mr. [REDACTED] s during; that
5 is, what did Mr. [REDACTED] s do for RRA?¶

6 A. He was an investigator.¶

7 Q. Did he ever perform investigation work on
8 any of the Epstein files?¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
10 instruction.¶

11 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

12 Q. Did you ever authorize Mr. [REDACTED] s to
13 perform investigation on the Epstein files?¶

14 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
15 instruction.¶

16 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

17 Q. All right. I asked you earlier about
18 Richard Fandrey, F-a-n-d-r-e-y. I think you said
19 you don't know who that -- you knew someone named
20 Rick; is that correct?¶

21 A. I know an investigator named Rick.¶

22 Q. Did Rick, did Rick perform any
23 investigation on the Epstein, did you authorize Rick
24 to perform any investigation on the Epstein files?¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and¶

1 instruction.¶

2 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

3 Q. And I believe we talked a little bit
4 about, we certainly talked about Mr. Jenne, did you
5 ever authorize or direct Mr. Jenne to perform any
6 investigation on the Epstein files?¶

7 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
8 instruction.¶

9 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

10 Q. Are you familiar with the company called
11 Blue Line Research and Development?¶

12 A. No.¶

13 Q. Are you, are you aware at the current time
14 that there is an entity called Blue Line Research
15 and Development which is composed of Mr. [REDACTED],
16 Mr. Richard Fandrey, Mr. Michael Fisten and Ken
17 Jenne?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 Q. If you're unaware of the existence of the
20 entity called Blue Line Research and Development,
21 LLC, would it be a correct statement that you have
22 never authorized anyone from Blue Line Research and
23 Development, LLC, to conduct any investigation of
24 Jeffrey Epstein?¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same¶

1 instruction.¶

2 MR. CRITTON: Says he doesn't know them.
3 How can that be an instruction?¶

4 MR. SCAROLA: Well, because I am not going
5 to tell you, we're not going to permit
6 Mr. Edwards to answer any questions about
7 either what he did or what he didn't do that
8 are part of the work product involved in his
9 representation of the Plaintiffs with claims
10 against Mr. Epstein whom Mr. [REDACTED] s is
11 representing.¶

12 MR. CRITTON: Did you ever --¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: So, in light of that and
14 what I have attempted to make very clear with
15 regard to the scope of our objections, if you
16 continue to ask questions which it is clear
17 fall within the scope of my instructions to
18 Mr. Edwards and my announced intention with
19 regard to the scope of those instructions, then
20 we will terminate this deposition so that I can
21 seek a protective order.¶

22 My suggestion is that you move onto other
23 areas that are outside the scope of that
24 instruction, if you have any other questions
25 outside the scope.¶

1 MR. CRITTON: [REDACTED], I have a lot of other
2 questions.¶

3 MR. SCAROLA: Okay.¶

4 MR. CRITTON: Let me be clear with you
5 with regard to any, for purposes of following,
6 asking any follow-up questions should the court
7 determine that I am entitled to this
8 information, you would agree that should the
9 court determine I am entitled to ask the name
10 of these individuals and possibly other
11 questions is, is that by not asking questions I
12 am in no way waiving my right to ask as many
13 questions as the court ultimately determines as
14 appropriate, proper, and as the court allows,
15 correct?¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: I absolutely agree.¶

17 MR. CRITTON: All right.¶

18 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

19 Q. Mr. Edwards, are you familiar with a
20 person named Alfredo Rodriguez?¶

21 A. Yes.¶

22 Q. And how do you know Mr. Rodriguez?¶

23 A. Who do I know him to be? How do I know him?
24 I met him the same -- well, I met him after you did,
25 after you and your investigators pre-depoed him on three¶

1 various occasions for a total of about 15 hours before 2 wo took this deposition. I met him for the first time 3 during that deposition.¶

4 MR. CRITTON: Let me move to strike as nonresponsive. 6 BY MR. CARTON:¶

7 Q. My question to you is when did you first 8 meet Mr. Rodriguez?¶

9 MR. SCAROLA: And you have an answer to 10 that question.¶

11 THE WITNESS: It's a very complete answer. 12 I, the day of his deposition.¶

13 BY MR. CRITTON: 14 Q. Had you ever spoken with Mr. Rodriguez 15 before that time?¶

16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. Had anyone on your behalf spoken 18 with Mr. Rodriguez?¶

19 A, No. 20 Q, Mr. Rodriguez's deposition occurred over a 21 two-day period; is that correct? Two separate days.¶

22 A. I believe that's right. 23 Q. And you were present for both of those 24 depositions; is that correct?¶

25 A. Yes.¶

1 Q. And the first one I believe at least in 2 looking at the transcript the first one occurred on 3 January 29th of '09?¶

4 A. Fin assuming. 5 Q. And the second, the follow-up¶

6 August 7th, 2009, correct? c a-.. 7 A. When was the first, January you sat 8 Q. Excuse me. I'm sorry. July 29th, 2009.¶

9 A. Okay. 10 Q. With the follow-up July, I'm sorry 11 August 7th, 2009.¶

12 A. If you say so. I'm not quarreling with that. 13 Q. And I will just represent that is what I 14 read off the transcripts. Between those two dates, 15 that is July 29th and August 7th of 09, did you 16 speak with Mr. Rodriguez at all?¶

17 MR, SCAROLA: Same objection, same 18 instruction to the extent that any such 19 conversation may have occurred in connection 20 with your representation of the Plaintiffs and 21. claims against Mr. Epstein.¶

22 BY MR. CRITTON: 23 Q. All l am asking right now, not the¶

24 substance but just so the record is clear t am just 25 askinadid you speak with Mr. Rodriguez between¶

1 July 29th and August 7th?¶

2 A. And if I did or if I didn't, either way that's 3 going to be protected by the work-product privilege and 4 I'm not going to give you that information because you're not entitled to it.¶

6 Q. I disagree even in a simple 7 attorney-client privilege you also, you identify the 8 date, you don't identify the subject, but you 9 identify the date, who nay have been present.¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: We understand your position 11 and it's not necessary to articulate it on the 12 record¶

13 MR. CRIT1ON: I just want to be clear. 14 And your position is the lame is you're not 15 talking.¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: Work-product 17 MR. CRiTTON: Wodoproduct, correct?¶

18 MR. SCAROLA: That's correct.¶

19 BY MR. CRITTON: 20 Q. Mr. Rodriguez was requested to bring 21 documents to his second deposition that he had 22 referenced that be might have. Do you recall that¶

23 itic die first deposition, Mr. Mi? 24 A; Id°. 25/ . And in fact when he came to the second¶

deposition, he didn't bring any documents with him, did he?¶

A. I don't remember. Q. Well, do you remember him producing any 5 documents at the second, at his completion of his 6 deposition?¶

7 A. I don't nm.....,ilber. 8 Q Do you recall him saying that he might 9 have some sort of book or some sort of list of munes 10 and addresses and/or names, excuse me, of females 11 who may have come to Mr. Epstein's house along with 12 phone numbers?¶

13 A. I don't remember if he said that or it says 14 that in the police report, but I remember that is information at some point in time.¶

16 Q All right. And subsequent, at the 17 conclusion — well, let me strike that.¶

18 Do you recall receiving any documents from 19 Mr. Rodriguez that were produced at his deposition 20 that had the names and addresses and/or phone 21 numbers of any other females?¶

22 A. I don't know. Do you? We were there together 23 1 don't remember specifically. I think the answer is 24 no.¶

25 Q And I think you're right.¶

1 A. Okay.
2 Q. We agree on that.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. Subsequent to the deposition; that is,
5 after Mr. Rodriguez's deposition, did Mr. Rodriguez
6 contact you?
7 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, instruct you not
8 to answer.
9 MR. CRITTON: Well, this is -- okay. This
10 is a third party contacting Mr. [REDACTED]. All
11 right.
12 MR. SCAROLA: It is not --
13 MR. CRITTON: It's just a yes or no I'm
14 looking for.
15 MR. SCAROLA: It is a witness in these
16 proceedings.
17 MR. CRITTON: So.
18 MR. SCAROLA: So, anything that
19 Mr. [REDACTED] has done or may have done in
20 connection with his investigation and
21 prosecution of the claims against Mr. Rothstein
22 it is our position is not the appropriate
23 subject matter of inquiry in the context of
24 this lawsuit, and is an attempt to invade the
25 attorney-client and work-product privileges. I¶

1 am instructing him not to answer.
2 If the court, if the court determines that
3 the scope of the privilege permits a response
4 to these questions, we would be happy to
5 respond to them.
6 But we have an obligation to, to
7 Mr. Edward's clients to protect their rights to
8 a fair trial and their rights to
9 confidentiality, and for that reason we are
10 obliged to interpret those privileges in their
11 broadest sense unless and until the court
12 decides that a more restrictive interpretation
13 should be applied.
14 BY MR. CRITTON:
15 Q. Between the first and second deposition of
16 Mr. Rodriguez, I think you, I think you indicated
17 that you did not speak with him; is that correct?
18 A. You're asking me if I indicated to you
19 previously during this deposition whether --
20 Q. Right.
21 A. -- I spoke to him or not? I, I don't
22 remember.
23 Q. Did you speak with Mr. Rodriguez between
24 his first and second.
25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same¶

1 instruction.
2 BY MR. CRITTON:
3 Q. Did Mr. Mr. Rodriguez ever make a request
4 of you at any time for any type of monies for
5 testimony, documents, or any other information
6 associated with any existing or potential claimants
7 directed to Mr. Epstein?
8 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
9 instruction.
10 BY MR. CRITTON:
11 Q. Subsequent, after Mr. Rodriguez or from
12 the time that Mr. Rodriguez completed his deposition
13 on August 7th of 2009, did you have an occasion to
14 speak with either the FBI, well, with the FBI
15 regarding Alfredo Rodriguez?
16 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
17 instruction.
18 BY MR. CRITTON:
19 Q. Did you after Mr. Rodriguez's completion
20 of his deposition on August 7th, 2009, did you have
21 an occasion to speak with any representative, a
22 professional attorney, professional slash attorney
23 for the U.S. Attorney's Office?
24 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection and
25 instruction.¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:
2 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], are you familiar with the,
3 the criminal complaint that was filed relating to
4 Alfredo Rodriguez?
5 MR. CRITTON: Let me show you what I will
6 mark as Exhibit 1 to the deposition.
7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
8 identification.)
9 MR. SCAROLA: By that question, does that
10 mean has he seen it before?
11 MR. CRITTON: First, let me show you
12 Exhibit 1. Do you -- it's a criminal
13 complaint, the United States of America versus
14 Alfredo Rodriguez.
15 MR. SCAROLA: Is your question has he seen
16 it before?
17 MR. CRITTON: Yes.
18 MR. SCAROLA: I'm not sure what "are you
19 familiar with it" means.
20 BY MR. CRITTON:
21 Q. Have you seen this criminal complaint
22 before today?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When did you first see this document?
25 A. I -- I don't know.¶

1 Q. Did you, did you see Exhibit 1, the
2 criminal complaint, prior to the time that it was
3 filed in the United States District Court?
4 A. Did I see it prior to it being filed?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. No, no.
7 Q. Okay. Did you provide an affidavit to any
8 individual at the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's Office
9 in support of, although not attached to this, to
10 Exhibit 1, the criminal complaint?
11 A. Repeat.
12 Q. Did you sign any affidavit or give, give
13 any sworn testimony associated with the criminal
14 complaint that was filed by the United States of
15 America versus Mr. Rodriguez?
16 A. It's obvious to me that you're trying to
17 circumvent the privileges that have been placed on the
18 record. I will answer that question that, no, I did
19 not, but I am not here to divulge anything that may
20 waive my attorney-client or work-product privilege or
21 otherwise jeopardize the claims that my three clients
22 are pursuing against Jeffrey Epstein for their being
23 sexually molested by him when they were underage minor
24 females.
25 Q. Mr. [REDACTED] are you the cooperating¶

1 during your years that you had worked as a State
2 Attorney?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Did you meet her only as a result
5 of Epstein related matters?
6 A. Yes, in its broadest sense I suppose.
7 Q. Did you, did you have, before you began
8 representing E.W., did you know who [REDACTED] Villafana
9 was?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. What, what was your first association or
12 what contact was, what was your first contact with
13 [REDACTED] Villafana ever?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. But if I understand correctly you only
16 know her through the context of the Jeffrey Epstein
17 matter; is that correct?
18 A. Her involvement with, yes.
19 Q. And that you only knew of her involvement
20 in the Jeffrey Epstein matter after you began
21 representing E.W.?
22 A. I don't believe that to be accurate.
23 Q. What involvement could you possibly, what
24 involvement would you have had with Mrs. Villafana
25 before you became involved in representing someone¶

1 witness who was referenced in the criminal
2 complaint, Exhibit 1?
3 MR. SCAROLA: Could you explain to us for
4 the record, please, how that line of inquiry is
5 reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
6 evidence in this case?
7 MR. CRITTON: I am not prepared to do that
8 right now.
9 MR. SCAROLA: Then I am not prepared to
10 allow Mr. [REDACTED] to answer that question
11 outside the presence of an Assistant United
12 States Attorney who can make a judgment as to
13 whether that is information that ought to be
14 disclosed.
15 BY MR. CRITTON:
16 Q. Mr. [REDACTED], you knew or you first [REDACTED]
17 Villafana through the complaint you filed on behalf
18 of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in July of 2008,
19 correct?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Had you spoken with her before that period
22 of time; that is, before the complaint was ever
23 filed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I am now -- did you know Ms. Villafana¶

1 associated with the Epstein matter?
2 A. I believe that I had read her name in the
3 newspaper related to some involvement with Jeffrey
4 Epstein's criminal investigation and/or case. I think
5 that's the first time I saw her name, I believe.
6 Q. Before, before you filed a lawsuit against
7 the United States of America, and I may have asked
8 you this earlier, so I apologize, did you ever speak
9 with Mrs. Villafana?
10 A. I believe that any communications that I would
11 have had with respect to Mrs. Villafana would have only
12 been in the interest of pursuing claims on behalf of the
13 clients that I represented. And therefore I am going to
14 claim a work-product privilege as to those
15 communications.
16 Q. Okay. My, my question was is only did you
17 speak with her prior to filing that complaint? Just
18 a yes or a no, and I am looking, that question is
19 not asking for the substance. I am just asking for
20 a yes or no.
21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
22 instruction.
23 BY MR. CRITTON:
24 Q. During the course of the litigation with
25 the United States Attorney's Office, I assume you¶

9 10 11 7 Na SCAROLA: Any of 8 have claims against Mr. Epstein MR. CIUTTON: Correct. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same¶

12 13 14 15 BY MR. CRITION: Q. Do you know Agent Nesbitt, sir? A. Yes. --Th you Q. And km do know Agent Nesbitt from the¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FBI? eananswer if you want. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. That's fine. MR_ CRITION: Nesbitt Kirkerablil. THE WITNESS: I don't know her last name but I do know first name is, the lust name is obviously an unusual name, so I do know who that is. I net her outside of the courtroom related to the Jane Doe 1 and 2 versus United States of America case.¶

3. had conversations with Mrs. Villafana from time to 2 time?

3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Is that true? 5 A. Is your assumption true?¶

6 Q. Correct. 7 A. I have spoken with Ms. Villafana. 8 Q. And when you spoke with Ms. Villafana 9 let me strike that. Have theggiLconversations 10 that you have had with Mr. Villafana or 11 Villafana, have they only been in the context of 12 Jane Doe I and 2 versus United States of America, 13 only in the context of that case?¶

14 MR SCAROLA: Same objection. MR. CRITTON: And I will separate out to 16 the extent that you were at the June 12th, 1 7 2009, hearing in front of Judge Marra where she¶

18 was present. 19 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 20 instruction.¶

21 BY MR. CRITTON: 22 Q. Has Ms.— have you spoken, have you had an 23 occasion to speak with Ms. Villafana with regard to 24 the criminal complaint, Exhibit No. 1, involving 25 Alfredo Rodriguez, Mr. Rodriguez?¶

1 Page 218¶

BY MR. CRITTON: 1¶

Q. Did you speak with Agent Nesbitt at that time? 2 3¶

A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what did, what did, did she initiate the conversation or did you? 4 5 6¶

A. The court initiated the conversation. 7¶

Q. Did the court say go outside and talk? 8¶

9 A. Right.¶

10 Q. The court being Judge Marra?¶

11 A. Correct.¶

12 Q. And who else was present _for that 13 conversation?¶

14 A. I don't remember. MI Villafana.¶

is Q. Okay. What was the discussion about that 16 the court ordered?¶

1'7 A. The failure of the U.S. Attorney's Office to 18 meaningfully confer with the-numerous victims of Jeffrey 19 Epstein's sexual abuse prior to negotiating a plea in 20 his criminal matter.¶

21 Q. Bow long did the conversation last?¶

22 Less than ten minutes.¶

23 Was Agent Jason Richards there as well?¶

24 There was a male agent there. I don't know 25S, but there was another FBI agent.¶

(S\¶

2 Q. Did Agent Nesbitt Kirkendall, did she say anything? Did she participate in the conversation?¶

1 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 2 instruction.¶

3 BY MR_ CRITION: 4 Q. Mr. have you ever been interviewed by the FBI or the U.S. Atto 6 with regard to any of your clients?¶

Page 219¶

3 A. No.¶

Q. Okay. Was it just Mrs. Villafana? 4¶

5 A. There was another U.S. Attorney there.¶

6 Q. A U.S.A.O. there?¶

7 A. Yes.¶

8 Q. Do you remember a he or a she?¶

9 A. He.¶

10 Q. Do you remember his name?¶

11 A. Lee.¶

12 Q. Lee?¶

13 A. I think that's his last name. Dexter Lee.¶

14 Q. Did Mr. did Dexter Lee, is he the one¶

15 who =ducted the conversation with you?¶

16 A. Yee.¶

17 Q. What was his response to your statement?¶

18 A. That this conversation is more complicated 19 than the time constraints that we have right now will 20 allow. We are not going to come to a resolution at this 21 point on any issues that you or your clients believe are 22 pertinent to the case you filed.¶

2 3 Q. That was the end of the conversation?¶

24 A. I men I am not quoting verbatim, but, yes 25 that was the summary.¶

1 Q. And did you go back in front of Judge
2 Marra that same day?
3 A. I can't remember.
4 Q. Did he issue an order based upon that
5 hearing?
6 A. The, the record in the case will speak for
7 itself. I really, I don't remember right now.
8 Q. Have you had any other conversations with
9 Nesbitt Kirkendahl other that? Well, I mean any
10 other face-to-face conversations with her other than
11 that one day back in July of, July or August of
12 2008?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Have you seen Nesbitt, Agent Nesbitt
15 Kirkendahl since July, July or August of 2008 during
16 that short conference as physically seen her
17 someplace?
18 A. Unless she was at the hearing we all attended
19 on your motion to stay that day when there were a lot of
20 people in the courtroom, the answer is no.
21 Q. Okay. Have you seen Agent Jason, assuming
22 the male agent's name was Jason Richards or Richard,
23 have you seen him since that day in July or August
24 of 2008?
25 A. I do not believe I have.¶

1 Rothstein.
2 Q. So, it would be a correct, and I am going
3 to expand it, would it be a correct statement that
4 no representative of the federal government and by
5 that I mean the Department of Justice, FBI, any
6 other law enforcement agency nor any state
7 governmental agency has ever asked you or quizzed
8 you or questioned you about your association with
9 Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler during the seven,
10 approximately seven months you were there; is that
11 correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Mr. [REDACTED] has, has anyone from the
14 United States Attorney's Office discussed the
15 topic -- well, let me strike that. Have you been
16 granted immunity with regard to any aspect of your
17 work associated with either the Epstein files or the
18 Rothstein prosecution?
19 A. I don't understand your question.
20 Q. Okay. You're aware that Mr. --
21 A. I can answer, no. I haven't been granted
22 immunity to anything, so it doesn't matter what your
23 question is.
24 Q. Okay. Have you ever had any conversations
25 with any of the probation officers in Palm Beach¶

1 Q. Have you spoken with either Nesbitt
2 Kirkendahl or Jason Richard relating to any Epstein
3 related matter since July or August of 2008?
4 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to instruct you
5 not to answer on the basis of the privilege as
6 previously described.
7 BY MR. CRITTON:
8 Q. Mr. [REDACTED] have you spoken with any rep,
9 has any representative of the FBI attempted to speak
10 with you regarding your association with the RRA
11 firm?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Has any member of the U.S. Attorney's
14 Office discussed with you any aspect of your tenure
15 or employment at the RRA firm?
16 A. No.
17 Q. In any conversations that you, that you
18 had that you've had with the United States
19 Attorney's Office at any time, has anyone ever asked
20 you any questions about Scott Rothstein?
21 A. You're presupposing that I had conversations,
22 but I will answer the question whether I have or have
23 not had conversations. Nobody has asked me any
24 questions from the State Attorney's Office, U.S.
25 Attorney Office, FBI, or other agency related to Scott¶

1 County regarding Mr. Epstein?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Have you directed that anyone have any
4 discussions with the probation officers in Palm
5 Beach County regarding Mr. Epstein?
6 A. That is clearly calling for work-product
7 privilege information. I'm not going to answer the
8 question.
9 Q. Have you had any discussion with any of
10 the other lawyers who represent clients in the
11 Epstein, in Epstein related matters regarding
12 Mr. Epstein's probation?
13 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
14 instructions, and I would add to those
15 objections the objection based upon a joint
16 prosecution interest.
17 BY MR. CRITTON:
18 Q. Mr. [REDACTED] among the Plaintiffs'
19 lawyers, is there any type of joint prosecution
20 agreement related to Mr. Epstein?
21 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same
22 instruction.
23 BY MR. CRITTON:
24 Q. Did you have -- did you engage in weekly
25 or monthly meetings among the Plaintiffs' lawyer to¶

1 Page 226¶

1 share investigative material regarding, that you had 1 instruction. 2 obtained regarding Mr. Epstein? 2 BY MR. Cl c 3 MR. SCAROLA: Same objections and 3 Q. Mr. MM. do any of the 4 instructions. 4 investigators — let me strike that. Did any of the 5 BY MR. CRITTON: 5 investigators who worked for RRA refer any Epstein 6 Q. Did you provide any of the investigative 6 client to you? 7 materials that had been acquired by you LuaLother 7 A. What is an Epstein client? 8 person outside of the RRA firm and the M,, Jaffe 8 Q. I am sorry. Did any of the investigators 9 firm up through the current date? 9 who worked for RRA refer a perspective claimant 10 MR. SCAROLA: Would you read that question 10 against Mr. Epstein to you? 11 back? 11 A. No. 12 BY MR. CRITTON: 12 Q. Did any of your, did any of the RRA 13 Q. Let me ask it. During the time that you 13 investigators ever meet with your drat clients? 14 were with RRA, excuse me, and had investigation done 14 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same 15 on Mr. Epstein, was any of your investigation that 15 instruction 16 you had performed turned over to any person outside 16 MR. CRITTON: Okay. And I'm looking for 17 of RRA or your clients? 17 is a yes(no. i 18 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 18 MR. SCAROLA: Correct. Same objection, 19 instruction to the extent that that would 19 same instruction. 20 encompass other attorneys with a shared 20 BY MR ON= 21 interest in the prosecution of Mr. Epstein. 21 Q. Mr. EIM, during the time that you were 23 to persons who did not have a direct interest 23 address bedwardsgara-law.com? 24 to lawyers who did not have a direct interest 24 A. I only had one e-mail address. 25 in the prosecution of the claims against 25 Q. All right. Did you ever receive any¶

22 If any of those materials were turned over 22 with RRA, did you, your e-mail, was your only e-mail¶

1 Mr. Epstein or to clients who did not have, to 1 information regarding your cases at your home 2 persons who did not have a direct interest in ',..2 e-mail? 3 the pursuit of their claims against 73 A. I don't remember. 4 Mr. Epstein, then you can answer to 4 Q. Okay. What is your home e-mail address, 5 extent. 5 please. ⁶THE WITNESS: Privileged. 6 THE WITNESS: Do 1 give this? 9 any written agreement and I know wait to make 9 BY MR. CRITTON: 10 certain that the objection is there, is as we both 10 Q. Did you have a separate fax number at RRA 11 know there are a number of claims. There are a 11 when you were there; that is, just so a fax would 12 number of claims that are outstanding against 12 come directly to either yours or an area where you 13 Mr. Epstein brought by a number of different 13 were located? 14 lawyers. 14 A. No. 15 MR. SCAROLA: The objection extends to 15 Q. In any of the directions that you ever 16 both written agreements and oral agreements. 16 gave to the investigators, did you ever put that in 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. We both know that 17 the form of a memo; that is, would you give them 18 there are a lot of claims against Mr. Epstein 18 written directions? 19 for basically the same conduct. 19 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 20 BY MR. CRITTON: 20 instruction. 21 Q. And my question to you is is, is that any 21 BY MR. CRITTON: 22 written agreement between the Plaintiff lawyers who 22 Q. To your knowledge did any of the 23 have filed claims against Mr. Epstein regarding the 23 investigations that were done regarding Mr. Epstein, 24 sharing of information? 24 were they provided to any other person at RRA? — 25 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 25 A. Excuse me?¶

7 BY MR. CRITTON: 7 MR. SCAROLA: (Mr. Scarola nods his head.) 8 Q. And I just want to be clear ' there 8 THE WITNESS: B-r-a-d-d-6-9@hotrnaiLcom.¶

1 Q. You have testified that investigations
2 were done during the time, on Mr., relating to
3 Mr. Epstein during the time that you were at RRA¶

4 A. Right.¶

5 Q. My question to you is, did you -- first of
6 all did you receive written reports in addition to
7 oral reports?¶

8 A. From the investigators?¶

9 Q. Yes, sir.¶

10 THE WITNESS: Answer?¶

11 MR. SCAROLA: Yeah.¶

12 THE WITNESS: The reports were -- yes, I
13 did.¶

14 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

15 Q. And were the reports provided by e-mail or
16 were they provided by, in the form of a memo that
17 would be sent from the investigator to you or both?¶

18 A. I, I do not remember there being any in the
19 form of an e-mail. Does not mean that there was not. I
20 did communicate by e-mail with other members of the firm
21 and other members of the investigative team on all cases
22 as has been my practice all along practicing law. There
23 were memos, though, that were given to me that were not
24 e-mail form that were the standard memos that I would
25 incorporate into a witness memo file.¶

1 Q. And again that would just be in your,
2 would that be in your electronic storage as well as
3 in the hard copies?¶

4 A. The version I saw was the electronic.¶

5 Q. So, that would be stored in the Fortis
6 program?¶

7 A. That's correct.¶

8 Q. All right. And again other individuals in
9 the firm, other lawyers in the firm might be able to
10 access that program, you just don't know?¶

11 A. Right. Well, the program, obviously that's
12 the program that the firm used. Now, whether they could
13 access, if you could go across cases that weren't cases
14 you worked on, I really just don't know.¶

15 Q. As an example could Mr. Fisten, on the, on
16 the Fortis, could he access your, your file on an
17 Epstein case?¶

18 A. I don't know.¶

19 Q. If someone accessed your file, accessed
20 your electronic file, would you necessarily know
21 that?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 Q. All right. So --¶

24 A. I don't believe so.¶

25 Q. It wouldn't show up that Michael Fisten,¶

1 and I'm using just as an example, is that he came in
2 or Scott Rothstein came in and looked at a
3 particular file of yours, whether it related to
4 Mr. Epstein or not, you don't know?¶

5 A. I can't answer that question accurately.¶

6 Q. Okay. Did you ever send investigative
7 reports to other lawyers regarding Mr. Epstein; that
8 is, if you got an investigative report from
9 Mr. Fisten or Mr. Jenne or whomever, would you send
10 those on to certain lawyers on a regular basis?¶

11 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that
12 question.¶

13 THE WITNESS: No.¶

14 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

15 Q. What lawyers, other than yourself, were
16 involved in the Epstein cases during the time you
17 were associated with RRA?¶

18 A. What do you mean by "were involved?" I guess
19 all.¶

20 Q. What, what lawyers actually worked on the
21 file? I know Mr. Berger worked on the Epstein
22 cases, correct?¶

23 A. In some limited capacity, correct.¶

24 Q. Okay. Mr. Adler I know attended
25 Mr. Epstein's deposition, correct?¶

1 A. Correct.¶

2 Q. Did, did any other lawyers other than
3 Mr. Adler or Mr. Berger attend any depositions?¶

4 A. Your memory is going to be as good as mine
5 there. I'm thinking. Mark Epstein's deposition was
6 attend by [REDACTED] Adler.¶

7 Q. He went with you to New York?¶

8 A. No. He didn't go with me to New York. He
9 attended the deposition, and I also attended the
10 deposition.¶

11 Q. Both in person?¶

12 A. Right.¶

13 Q. Was he there for another file or did he
14 meet you there to specifically attend Mark Epstein's
15 deposition?¶

16 A. Coincidence that he was in New York during the
17 time when his deposition was being taken.¶

18 Q. Any other lawyer that you can recall being
19 at a deposition other than Adler, Berger and
20 yourself?¶

21 A. Not right now. If you remind me, I, I may
22 remember. I don't remember right now.¶

23 Q. Did other lawyers in the firm at RRA
24 perform services on the files; that is, and by that
25 I mean did they, were they involved in drafting¶

1 motions, research, appeals, pleadings, papers that 2 were filed? 3 MR. SCAROLA: You can, you can answer 4 whether they were, there were other lawyers involved in drafting tasks without identifying 6 what those may have been. 7 THE WITNESS: Other lawyers contributed to 8 some extent to the prosecution of those cases. 9 BY MR. CRITTON: 10 Q. Who? Names. Pm not asking for tasks. 11 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer. 12 MR. CRITTON: I am asking for names 13 THE WITNESS: Bill Berger, Judge, 14 MB Adler, Rob Buschel. 15 BY MR. CRITTON: 16 Q. B-o-u-c-h-e-l? 17 A. I don't know how to spell it. B-u, I don't 18 know how, B-u-s-c-h-e-I, I believe. 19 Q. All right. Is he currently with you now? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Any other lawyers? 22 A. And you're asking for no matter how minimal, 23 just anything done by any lawyers? 24 Q. Correct. 25 A. Michael, I think his name is Michael. It was¶

1 another lawyer. That's, that's -- those are the ones 2 that I can remember right now. 3 Q. Were there ever meetings that occurred, 4 well, not — were there ever specific meetings 5 were attended by various lawyers to disc 6 Epstein's cases? 7 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer wbetSWthere 8 were meetings. 9 THE WITNESS: There were meetings to 10 discuss every case including Jeffrey Epstein's 11 CMGS 12 BY MR. CRITTON: 13 Q. And when you say there were meetings to 14 discuss every case, were Sere routine meetings that 15 were held to discuss your cases a cases in general? 16 A. It's how the fitin worked If you wanted to 17 discuss oases, Dr the case was a case that was thought 18 to need more than one or more than two attorneys, then a 19 meeting could easily be assembled within RRA to sit 20 around the table and discuss issues related to any case. 21 And yes, that happened with respect to cases filed 22 against Jeffrey Epstein. 23 Q. And so there could have been additional 24 lawyers in addition to Adler, Berger, and Rob 25 Buschel and yourself that would have commented on an¶

1 Epstein case? 2 A. When I was giving you that list of names, I 3 was picturing one of the couple meetings related to 4 Jeffrey Epstein's case. Could there have been other 5 lawyers in the room, yes, but I think that is the 6 exclusive list. 7 Q. Did Mr., did anyone ever attend by phone 8 meetings associated -- 9 A. I understand. 10 Q. -- that involved Mr. Epstein? 11 A. I understand. No. 12 Q. Did Scott Rothstein att 13 meetings wherein strategy 14 the Epstein cases? 15 A. No. 16 Q. The one meeting ad in Mr., 17 Mr. Rothstein's office wi Adler and some 18 unknown person on the phone, were you given any 19 direction at that time that certain discovery should 20 be done or certain tactics should be used with 21 regard to prosecuting the Epstein cases? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 23 ons. 24 "CRITTON: 25 . Did you ever receive any e-mail any regarding¶

1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correspondence from Scott Rothstein that detailed or that set forth discovery that would be, that should be undertaken with regard to the Epstein cases? MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that with a yes Of no. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Did you ever have, did you ever receive any correspondence directly, Mr., Mr. Rothstein to you, during the time that you were at RRA? A. Yes. Q. Did any of the correspondence ever involve Epstein or comnamication ever involve Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: You can answer that. THE WITNESS: To some extent, yes. BY MR. CRITTON: Q. Okay. And what did, what did, what information did Mr. Rothstein send you that involved Mr. Epstein? MR. SCAROLA: Sane objection, same instruction. BY MR CRITTON: Q. Is the infomstion that you received or the communication you received from Mr. Rothstein regarding, that involved Mr. Erten), was that by¶

1 way of e-mail?¶

2 A. Yes.¶

3 Q. Did you ever receive any memorandum from 4 him; that is, a typewritten memo that was then sent 5 to you through office mail that was not electronic 6 involving Mr. Epstein?¶

7 A. No.¶

8 Q. At the meetings that you, at the meetings 9 that oconS where these various lawyers, Berger, 10 Adler, M, Rob Buschel were present and Epstein ¹¹was discussed was the discovery that, discovery 12 and/or investigation regarding Mr. Epstein was that 13 ever discussed?¶

14 MR. SCAROLA: Same objection, same 15 instruction.¶

16 BY MR.¶

Q. Mr. are you aware as a former state prosecutor there are laws against conducting certain financial transactions in money that's derived from a crime?¶

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

22 Q. Okay. Well, you were a former state 23 prosecutor, is that correct?¶

24 A. Right. Yet¶

25 Q. Right. Are you aware that there are¶

1 certain laws both state and federal that, that are, 2 that preclude conducting certain financial 3 transaction, transactions in money that is den 4 from a crime?¶

A. Still don't understand your qu 6 first before I try to answer your question, 7 taking me back teatime when I was a State A cy and 8 asking back then did I know and then your question?¶

9 Q. Yes.¶

10 A. Back when I was a State Attorney did 'know 11 that there are crimes related to money transactions?¶

12 Q. No.¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: Could I help you? Do you 14 want to ask him whether he was aware of the 15 existence of a state RICO statute?¶

16 MR. CRITTON: No.¶

17 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. 18 MR, CRITTON: I am okay with that first, 19 but I am will going to ask my question.¶

20 BY MR. CRITTON: 21 Q. I assume you're ante of the existence of 22 a state RICO statute, correct?¶

23 A. I don't know that I was aware of that back 24 then. I just can't whether I knew about RICO¶

25 back at the State Attorney's Office. I never prosecuted¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 A. Beginning with DUN through attempted murders and everything in between. No -- well, not no, very few economic crimes, some insurance fraud cases but very few, otherwise drugs, guns, robberies, burglaries attempted murder, aggravated batteries, those types of crimes, false imprisonment.¶

16 17 Q. Well, were you ever, do you know what money launderingerneans in a criminal context?¶

18 19 A. In some taste sense rdo know what money laundering Ineana;•>¶

20 Q. Whack! ymilfriderstand that to be?¶

21 22 23 A. _That ye", that the criminal takes money and through mac illegal means attempts to make bad money¶

24 25.k CRrITON: Let me show you what I will as Exhibit 2 which is the complaint that¶

2 was filed against Mr. Rothstein, yourself, and¶

1 RICO claims.¶

2 Q. But you certain have brought RICO claims 3 against Mr. Epstein?¶

4 A. I know about one now.¶

5 Q. Okay. At the time that you were at the 6 State Attorneys Office, what kind of -- how long 7 were you there?¶

8 A. Three years.¶

9 Q. And what kind of crimes did you prosecute?¶

(Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2 was marked for 4 identification.)¶

5 BY MR. CROTON:¶

6 Q. You're familiar with this complaint, sir? 7 A. Unfortunately I have read this frivolous a complaint.¶

9 MR. CRTITON: Move to strike as 10 nonresponsive. You've seen -- all I want is a 11 yes or no.¶

12 Are you familiar with this document?¶

MR. SCAROLA: I am going to object to the form of the question. It is vague and 15 ambiguous. I don't know what familiarity means. He has seen it before.¶

17 BY MR. CRIllitt•¶

18 Q. Mr. you have seen and read the 19 entire complaint along with the attachments, 20 Exhibit 2?¶

21 A. I've read the complaint. !have never read in 22 the entirety Exhibit 2.¶

23 Q. Art you familiar, do you know what an 24 information is?¶

25 A. Yes.¶

•¶

1 Q. And that's Exhibit 1 attached to the
2 complaint, correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And you're aware that, and this is the
5 information that was brought by the United States of
6 America, U.S.A. versus Scott Rothstein, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you're aware that within the -- well
9 let me strike that. Are you aware that
10 Mr. Rothstein has pled guilty to, excuse me, the
11 information that was brought against him by the
12 U.S.A.?
13 A. I am aware that he pled guilty to something.
14 Q. With regard to the complaint brought by
15 the U.S.A., I am sorry, the information brought by
16 U.S.A. against Mr. Rothstein, I assume you have read
17 the allegations associated with the racketeering
18 conspiracy, the pattern of racketeering activity,
19 correct?
20 A. I haven't.
21 Q. Okay. If you turn to Page 3, Paragraph 4,
22 were you aware, were you aware prior to coming in
23 here today that Mr. Rothstein was, that the charges
24 that were brought against him were for under, under
25 RICO but with regard to mail fraud, wire fraud,¶

1 asserted that the firm was a racketeering
2 enterprise, correct?
3 A. Not necessarily -- no.
4 Q. Well, if you look in Paragraph 2, see
5 where the firm is identified as the enterprise of
6 the racketeering conspiracy?
7 A. Law firm. Paragraph 2 of the information says
8 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., was a law firm with
9 offices located at 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort
10 Lauderdale, Florida, and elsewhere. The law firm
11 employed approximately 70 attorneys and engaged in the
12 practice of law involving a wide range of specialties
13 including labor and employment law.
14 Q. Are you in Paragraph 2?
15 A. Of the information, yes.
16 Q. I'm sorry. I am looking at -- my
17 apologies. On Paragraph 2 under Count I, my error.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. See where the law firm is identified as
20 the racketeering enterprise?
21 A. I'm sorry. Your question is am I, do I
22 recognize that the law firm is categorized as an
23 enterprise. Yes, in that paragraph I see that.
24 Q. Have you had an occasion to discuss with
25 any, with either Mr. Adler or Mr. Rosenfeldt any of¶

1 laundering of monetary instruments, engaging in
2 monetary transactions, and conspiracy to launder
3 monetary instruments and engage in monetary
4 transactions?
5 A. I, I have read that in the newspapers. I have
6 been told that by numerous people. So, yes, I was aware
7 of that.
8 Q. And within the complaint at Paragraph 6 it
9 says the Defendant --
10 A. The information or the complaint?
11 Q. I'm sorry. Within the information,
12 Exhibit 1 to the complaint, in Paragraph 6 where it
13 speaks in terms of the Defendant and his
14 co-conspirators, conspirators agreed, agreed to
15 engage in a pattern of racketeering activity through
16 its base of operation at the offices of RRA. Do you
17 see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Do you know who the, do you know
20 any of the co-conspirators in addition who are
21 associated with Mr. Rothstein?
22 A. Assuming that they are former employees of
23 RRA, which I would presume several of them are, I am
24 sure that I probably know them.
25 Q. And you're aware that the government has¶

1 the allegations directed to Mr. Rothstein --
2 A. No.
3 Q. -- in the criminal complaint?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Since the implosion at the firm have you
6 had an occasion to talk about or speak or discuss
7 any firm business regarding Mr. Rothstein and the
8 ponzi scheme that he was running at RRA?
9 A. Have I had an occasion where I could have
10 talked --
11 Q. No, I'm sorry. Have you had an occasion
12 to discuss with Mr. Adler since you left the firm or
13 since the implosion any aspects of the, of the ponzi
14 scheme that Mr. Rothstein and his co-conspirators
15 were running through the firm?
16 MR. SCAROLA: Are you asking whether he
17 did have such a discussion or whether he had an
18 occasion to have such a discussion?
19 BY MR. CRITTON:
20 Q. Did you have such a discussion?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Have you discussed that or have you
23 seen Mr. Adler at all other than hi, hello, since --
24 A. Yes. So, the occasion existed. We just
25 didn't have that discussion.¶

1 Q. Have you, and if I understand correctly 1 2 you haven't discussed any tom business with 2 3 Mr. Adler since the implosion; is that correct? 3 4 A. Finn business? 4¶

5 Q. Any firm RRA business? 5 6 A. Right, no. 6 7 Q. How about with Mr. Rosenfeldt, have you 7 8 had any discussions with him — 9 9 A. None. 9¶

10 Q. — since the implosion of the firm in late 10 11 October of '09? 11¶

12 A. No. 12 13 Q. If you wanted, if you had any, other than 13 14 your existing partners have you had an occasion to 14 15 speak with any other partners or former partners of 15 16 the firm regarding the implosion -- well, let me 16 17 strike that -- regarding the ponzi scheme that was 17 18 being run by Mr. Rothstein through the firm? 18¶

19 A. I have spoken to my current partners about it. 19 20 Q. Are your current partners, are you aware 20 21 of any of your current partners being a target of an 21 22 investigation as a potential co-conspirator with 22 23 Mr. Rothstein? 23¶

24 A. No, way. 24 25 Q. You're not aware of or no one has told you 25¶

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off video record —¶

MR. SCAROLA: That will be a refreshing change.¶

ME VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off video record at 3:44 p.m.¶

(A brief recess was held.). MR. CRAYON: Mr.¶

THE VIDEOORAPHER: We're back on video record. It is 3:59 pin. BY MR. CIUTTON:¶

Q. Mr. l=, when you joined RRA, if I understood your earlier testimony, with regard to the Epstein cases and your other cases when you came there as far as you were concerned is you had the ability to spend whatever money was necessary to prosecute the Epstein cases, fair statement?¶

A. 1 don't bow that that's true or it's not true I mean.¶

Q. Well — A. My judgment was never questioned.¶

Q. Correa And therefore whatever monies either in investigation, in doing ,40F ' that was your decision and your decision¶

6 S 1 that, correct? 2 A. I am not aware of that and nobody has told 3 that¶

4 Q. Mr. Rothstein founded what was, what 5 ultimately became RRA in approximately 2002. 6 you aware of that fact?¶

7 A. No. 8 Q. How long did you thinkMr. Rothstein had 9 been — well, let me strike that. How long did you 10 think RRA had been in existence prior to your 11 joining the firm? What were you told?¶

12 A. I don't know what I was ever told. I think 13 that I learned that information when the implosion, as 14 you call it, occurred.¶

15 Q. And were you, in terms of what the 16 revenues Of the firth were, were you ever advised 17 what the revenues of the firm were?¶

18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. Were you, were you familiar with 20 what the expenses were associated with operating the 21. RRA firm?¶

22 A. No. 23 Q. Were you in anyway -- well, let me strike¶

24 that. With regard to — let me take a five minute 25 break and let me collect mzthouilits.¶

A. Whatever money that I spent was my decision — : Q. No. Whatever money you spent on¶

investigators, on doing depositions, on requesting 4 transcripts, on doing what was necessary to¶

5 prosecute the Epstein cases, that was your decision? 6 A. No. The actions were my decisions in terms of 7 how to prosecute the case. The amount of money to spend 8 per exercise was not my decision nor was I privy to that 9 information.¶

10 Q. Well, but, you were the one who directed 11 that the particular task be taken, correct?¶

12 MR. SCAROLA: This is, this is 13 repetitious.¶

14 MR. CRITTON: lam setting a stage. 15 MR. SCA ROLA: This is repetitious of areas¶

16 of examination that were covered thoroughly in 17 the earlier portions of this deposition. 18 THE WITNESS: If I wanted a witness¶

19 interviewed, I could ask an investigator to 20 interview. The investigator, how they were¶

21 paid, how much they were paid, whether they 22 were paid is not something that I had any¶

23 Imowtedge of at all. 24 BY MR_ CR1TTON:¶

25 Q. Okay. When you ran your own firm you¶

1 obviously knew what, whether hiring an investigator 2 or what a particular cost was because you had to pay 3 it, correct?¶

4 A. Yes.¶

5 Q. Okay. And I think as you described 6 earlier is that there had been very little discovery 7 up until the time you started working for RRA in 8 your three cases, true?¶

9 A. Not very little discovery. Obviously we had 10 gone through interrogatories, responses, request for 11 production, responses or lack of responses, however, the 12 majority of the depositions that were taken, the cases 13 just happened to be right last summer for most of those 14 depositions to take place, and that's what happened.¶

15 Q. Not only depositions but as well the 16 investigation as you have descnbed, your 17 investigator that you hired as an outside person 18 didn't really start until late March or early April 19 in conjunction with the other investigation that you 20 did during the time you were with RRA, count?¶

21 A. Fair statement.¶

22 Q. All right. And when you were at PRA you 23 described earlier, and I won't belabor it, but you 24 described the compound I think is the word that you 25 used that Mr. Rothstein kept himself in when he was at the firrn, correct? \cs A. Correct¶

1¶

2¶

3 Q. Right. And he was not accessible tce i .Sr . i¶

4 everyone else, true?¶

6 7 Q. And was he on your floor or was he on a completely separate floor?¶

8 9 MR. 0r8ROLA: As opposed to a partly separate floor.¶

10 11 THE WITNESS: For the most pan he was on a separate floor.¶

12 BY MR CRITTON:¶

13 14 15 Q. Okay. And were there guards during the time that you were at, at the RRA fain, RRA, were there ever guards that patrolled the hallways?¶

16 A. Yes.¶

17 Q. And was that from the day you started?¶

18 A. L believe so.¶

19 Q. And had you ever been in a firm where —¶

20 21 bless you. Had you ever been in a firm where there — well, let me strike that. The guards were¶

22 what, Broward County Sheriffs Officers?¶

23 A. I don't ranember the agency but they were¶

24 25 armed uniformed police officers. I believe Fort Lauderdale.¶

1 Q. Okay. Were they all on the, were they, 2 were they .-¶

3 A. Some wee B.5.O as well. Some were Broward 4 Sheriffs Office. Some were from Fort Lauderdale. it 5 was both.¶

6 Q. With, with regard to the police officers 7 and the Sheriffs Deputy's that were present, what 8 they on every floor of RRA?¶

9 A. it seemed that way.¶

to Q. And had you ever been in a, in a law firm 11 either as a visitor or as an employee or partner 12 where you had seen armed guards from either a 13 Sheriffs Office or a police department roaming the 14 halls?¶

15 A. No.¶

16 Q. Had you ever been to the RRA offices 17 before you acceptalthe job?¶

18 A. No.¶

19 Q. When yott got there and you saw the anted 20 guards panelling Itraws, did you ever have a 21 convention with Adler or anyone else as 22 like what in heaven's name is going on here?¶

23 -14ibt I didn't see them when I first got that.¶

24 How much time passed before you saw the 2 Tyr¶

A. Right.¶

3 A. When I first started I believe that the people patrolling, I'm not sure that they initially were Broward Sheriffs or Fort Lauderdale police. I think¶

4 5 6 7 that may have been a month after I began. From what I remember seeing. and I can envision the people in my head, they were private security people. At least that was the appearance or the interpretation that i had.¶

8 And I didn't question it at the time who they were.¶

9 Q. Within —¶

10 A. I don't think.¶

11 12 13 Q. Within a short period of time though you recognized that they were either Sheriffs Deputies or police officers?¶

14 15 16 17 18 A, At the point in time where I recognized that they were armed uniformed police in the firm, Yus. I questioned it not only to Adler but to anybody else, anybody else, because all of the lawyers in the firm thought it was strange.¶

19 Q. Okay. And what did Adler tell you?¶

20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That Scott Rothstein has a lot of money, prior to you being hero, a female attorney was murdered and he wants to make sure that his friends and family are as secured as possible, that while he has this extra money to spend on security, he is going to do that for all of our safety.¶

1 Q. Did you understand as well that he had, 2 that the firm was paying for aimed guards to guard 3 his house 24 hours a day?¶

4 A. No. 5 Q. When did you learn that fact? 6 A. After the disbandment of RRA 7 Q. Did Mr. Adler tell you that Mr. Rothstein 8 had amazing or substantial wealth? 9 A. I don't know in those words, but I, I¶

10 definitely understood that. 11 Q. Okay. In meeting Mr. Rothstein initially, 12 initially for the ten minutes as you were 13 contemplating taking a job and on the two other 14 occasions or the one other occasion when you saw him 15 out in the restaurant, I think you described him as 16 fliunboyant?¶

17 A. I'm not nut I used that word but probably one 18 synonymous, and, yes, ! would describe him as such.¶

19 Q. Was he someone that at least -- well, let 20 me strike that. Were you aware that he had a, a 21 watch collection of hundreds of watches?¶

22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you see him wear expensive jewelry 24 when you saw him; that is, the few occasions that 25 you saw him?¶

1 A. I went there one time.¶

2 Q. For what occasion?¶

3 4 5 6 7 A. I don't remember the occasion, but it was a gathering that he had at his house and he asked, during the course of me working there were ten occasions where everybody was invited to go to his house for various events and on one occasion, I went. Q. mall right. And from being in his¶

9 10 house did you recognize immediately that this was a multi-million dollar house?¶

11 A. Yes.¶

12 Q. Okay. Was it on the¶

13 A. Yes.¶

14 15 16 Q. And could you tell Vise in design or the decorationttha fisted that this was at least a man, a man that had significant wealth?¶

17 A. Yes.¶

18 19 Q. All tight. And could you, did you have an opportunity to set his collection of automobiles?¶

20 A. No.— ---¶

21 22 23 Q. going the time that you were in the house, did you have an opportunity, did, did you at the house?¶

24 o.¶

25 How many people were there, best estimate?¶

3. 2 3 4 A Never. I didn't take notice of that. Q. Okay. When you saw him, was he dressed a suit or was he dressed in business, or in more casual clothes?

5 6 7 a 9 A. Always a suit Q. And looking like a million but A Looking ridiculous. I Q. But something that looked' very expense, flashy, showy?¶

10 11 12 13 A. I couldn't tell how expensive it was, but flashy and showy, yes. It may be a pink shirt with a purple tie and a blue suit, something that you would never expect a lawyer to be wearing, yes.¶

14 15 16 Q. And in tams of the, in tams of the, of his personal wealth or his, his personal assets, were you away of try he lived?¶

17 18 19 20 21 A Was I aware when? Q During the time you worked for RRA A Yes. Q. Okay. And were you aware that he was living in a multi-million dollar house?¶

22 23 24 A. When, when I went to the house I, I recognized it as such. Q. You said you want to the house. Did you¶

25 go to Mr. Rothstein's house? 'C r4I Are we talking like ten or 12?¶

2 A. No, no, no. 250.¶

3 Q. Did you talk to Mr. Rothstein at all?¶

4 A. Not even fora second.¶

5 Q. Could you walk anyplace in the house that 6 you wanted?¶

7 A. The party, at least to the extent that I 8 participated in it. was outside. So1.1 don't know if 9 I could have walked around the house, but I did not walk 10 around the house nor did I really walk inside the house 11 other than to go in the front door, straight out back, 12 and then leave the exact same pathway that I entered.¶

13 Q. What his property located on Castillo 14 Island?¶

15 A. I don't know.¶

16 Q. Were you aware or did you become aware 1.7 that Mr., during the time that you were there that 18 Mr. Rothstein had investments in multiple real 19 properties?¶

20 A. No. 21 Q. Were you aware at the time that you met¶

22 him first at the BOVA restaurant that he had an 23 interest in BOVA restaurant?¶

24 A. When I met him, no. 25 O. Did he have an interest in BOVA restaurant¶

1 at that time?
2 A. I heard that sometime after I began working
3 there. He certainly acted like he did.
4 Q. Did you learn that he had investments in
5 other business entities, whether they were other
6 restaurants or other business entities --
7 A. Through --
8 Q. -- during the time that you worked at RRA?
9 A. Through rumors.
10 Q. And rumor was he had his fingers in many
11 different businesses?
12 A. It sounded like hundreds.
13 Q. And did you understand that he had a
14 substantial collection of automobiles?
15 A. What do you mean by substantial selection or
16 collection?
17 Q. Well, were you, during the time that you
18 were at RRA were you aware that he had Ferraris?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Multiple Ferraris?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Were you aware that he had a [REDACTED]?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were you aware that he had a Bugatti?
25 A. I heard that.¶

1 Q. Were you aware that he had a Rolls Royce?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Were you aware that he had multiple
4 Corvettes?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Either a Corvette or multiple Corvettes?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you aware that he had multiple
9 Mercedes Benz?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Were you aware that he owned a yacht?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And was that parked behind his
14 house?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you aware that he also -- and did it,
17 if I was to say it was approximately an 85 to
18 90-foot yacht or, in fact, an 87-foot yacht?
19 A. I wouldn't quarrel with that.
20 Q. Did it also appear that he had a
21 substantial sport fisherman that was parked out
22 there as well?
23 A. I didn't see that.
24 Q. Were you aware that he had 33-foot Aqua,
25 Aquaviva?¶

1 A. No.
2 Q. Were you aware that he had multiple jet
3 skis?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Were you aware that he had a 55-foot Sea
6 Ray?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you aware that he owned a
9 Lamborghini?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Again during the time that you were at
12 RRA?
13 A. I understand that. The answer is no.
14 Q. In addition to the, to the business of
15 owning BOVA what other business ventures did you
16 understand he had? I think you said you thought he
17 was in hundreds of businesses.
18 A. Through a rumor.
19 Q. Right.
20 A. I understood that he owned a Vodka. I
21 understood generically that he owned or purchased
22 various patents. I understood -- I didn't know what the
23 patents were. I understood that he owned other
24 restaurants. I understood that he owned or was partial
25 owner of Cafe Iguana.¶

1 At some point in time I learned that he
2 was owner or partial owner of the Versace mansion.
3 And I think in general it was always explained to me
4 or I overheard he had, he has his hands in all of
5 these, this assortment of businesses and those
6 business ventures have done very well, and that is
7 the source of his apparent extreme amount of wealth.
8 Q. Who told you that?
9 A. I don't, I don't know. More, more than one
10 person. I mean, that was just kind of the word around
11 the campfire so to speak.
12 Q. Did you inquire as to -- let me strike
13 that. Did you ever see any documents that reflected
14 or documents or read any information about
15 Mr. Rothstein that preexisted 2002 which was kind of
16 the start of the RRA firm?
17 A. I don't understand.
18 Q. Okay. Well, I think we established
19 earlier that your understanding was that RRA kind of
20 started as a firm in the 2002 time frame.
21 A. Well, you told me that and I have been told
22 that after the implosion that that was the time period
23 that RRA started. I didn't know anything about Scott
24 Rothstein until the year 2009 at all.
25 Q. Did you do any research with regard to¶

1 Mr. Rothstein prior to going to the firm and by
2 research I mean people Google. Did you Google him?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you, did the firm have a brochure?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Did you ever see brochures in the waiting
7 room or the reception rooms that described the firm
8 when it was founded, background of the firm, et
9 cetera?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Was it on your web site?
12 A. Was what on my web site?
13 Q. The history or the background of the firm.
14 Let me strike that. RRA had a website?
15 A. RRA had a website.
16 Q. That's no longer in existence, true?
17 A. True.
18 Q. And --
19 A. To my knowledge.
20 Q. Did you ever go on the website and
21 checkout the web site for the history or the
22 background of RRA and Mr. Rothstein?
23 A. I went on the website. I don't know that the
24 website even had a history. If it did, I don't remember
25 ever looking at it.¶

1 Q. Did it, did, at least from what you saw
2 and observed of Mr. Rothstein, did it appear to you
3 that the, his wealth far exceeded the type of
4 business that it appeared to you that the firm was
5 doing?
6 A. I have no understanding whatsoever. No,
7 that's not something that ever crossed my mind.
8 Q. Well, under these circumstances is, is
9 when you went to the firm, you had the ability to
10 your discretion to spend whatever monies you wanted
11 in prosecuting your personal injury and Epstein
12 cases. You, no one ever turned down a request
13 either for a reimbursement or told you not to expend
14 any money, true?
15 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, compound and
16 repetitious.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
18 question.
19 BY MR. CRITTON:
20 Q. No one, as to any expenditure that you
21 ever made on an Epstein case --
22 MR. SCAROLA: Isn't this about the fourth
23 time that you're eliciting exactly the same
24 testimony? Isn't it very clear the extent to
25 which Mr. [REDACTED] had control over financial¶

1 matters with regard --
2 MR. CRITTON: Form?
3 MR. SCAROLA: -- to these cases?
4 MR. CRITTON: Form?
5 MR. SCAROLA: No, no. It's a, it's a
6 speaking inquiry.
7 BY MR. CRITTON:
8 Q. Mr. I [REDACTED] did you ever have any
9 dealings with Deborah Villegas?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Am I saying it right?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. V-i-l-l-e-g-a-s?
14 A. I've seen the name.
15 Q. Did you know who she was?
16 A. In what way?
17 Q. As it related --
18 A. I knew that she worked for the firm.
19 Q. What did you understand her position was?
20 A. Rothstein's [REDACTED]
21 Q. Did you understand her to be the COO of
22 the company, of the firm?
23 A. Right. I don't know if COO or whatever, but
24 his right-hand man; that's the person who gets him what
25 he wants. That's at least in a broad term what I¶

1 understood her position to be.
2 Q. Did you understand she was a financial
3 person?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Or an administrative person?
6 A. My understanding was administrative.
7 Q. With regard to Mr. Rothstein's; that is,
8 his real property, his vehicles, his boats, his
9 business interests, would it be a correct statement,
10 sir, that you weren't concerned about the source of
11 his wealth?
12 A. You went through a list of the things that I
13 knew or did not know him to have in terms of assets.
14 And I told you for the most part I didn't even know that
15 he had those things. In fact, while you were out of the
16 room, I just educated myself by reading the information
17 on some of the things he had and I didn't know until
18 right now that he had those things. But certainly while
19 I was working at RRA I didn't know that he had those
things.
20 Q. Then let me be specific. With regard to
21 the, with regard to the house that you knew he had,
22 with regard to the yacht that you knew he had, with
23 regard to the vehicles that you knew he had, with
24 regard to the business interests, at least BOVA and
25¶

1 at least what was rumored to be his business
2 interest, did you believe that the source of his, of
3 his apparent wealth was as a result of the law firm?¶

4 A. I believe that the source of his wealth was
5 the law firm as well as the, what I have described as an
6 assortment of businesses that he had his hands in of
7 which only a fraction I was aware.¶

8 Q. Well, what did you understand to be the
9 source of the funding of the, of the Epstein cases
10 and the other lawsuits that you had?¶

11 A. The checks I believe were written by the law
12 firm.¶

13 Q. Okay. And what did you believe was the
14 source of the monies that the law firm got to expend
15 some, just on the three cases that you had with Mr.
16 Epstein, some three to $500,000, I mean separate and
17 apart from all of the, your other personal injury
18 cases and separate and apart from all of the other
19 69 lawyers who were in the law firm who also had
20 cases?¶

21 A. I didn't have a belief at all as to the source
22 of any of the monies that were used for any of the case.¶

23 Q. Was it your position it really wasn't your
24 concern; that is, wherever the money came from, it
25 didn't bother you; all you knew is that the firm was¶

1 funding your cases?¶

2 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, argumentative.
3 THE WITNESS: Yeah. At the time I believe
4 that I am working at a well recognized law firm
5 with good people and that is a successful law
6 firm and this is the way that law firms at that
7 level operate, and right, I didn't --
8 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

9 Q. Didn't care?¶

10 A. Right, I didn't care. I didn't question it.
11 Q. With, with regard to, let me ask you some
12 names and see if you recognize the names. Do you
13 know a person by the name of Barry Bekkadan,
14 B-e-k-k-a-d-a-n?¶

15 A. Never heard the name until right now.
16 Q. A.J. Discala?¶

17 A. Again same answer.
18 Q. Clockwork Capital Advisers?¶

19 A. No, never heard of them.
20 Q. Razorback Funding?¶

21 A. Nerve heard of it.
22 Q. Michael Szafranski, S-z-a-f-r-a-n-s-k-i?¶

23 A. Heard that name --
24 Q. And --
25 A. -- only after implosion and through papers and¶

1 things of that nature.
2 Q. And that's my question to you: Did you
3 hear these names before or during the time that you
4 were at RRA as distinct from now?¶

5 A. Of that list you just read until right this
6 second, Michael Szafranski is the only one that I have
7 ever heard of and that was after implosion of RRA¶

8 Q. And again this question is specific to the
9 time frame --¶

10 A. Sure.
11 Q. -- that you were there? Dominic
12 Ponatchio, P-o-n-a-t-c-h-i-o.¶

13 A. No.
14 Q. Moto, M-o-t-o, Ban, B-a-n, Adon, A-d-o-n?¶

15 A. No.
16 Q. Ever heard of Benozon (phonetic) Varon,
17 V-a-r-o-n?¶

18 A. No.
19 Q. Onyx Capital?¶

20 A. No.
21 Q. Onyx Options Consultants?¶

22 A. No.
23 Q. BWS Investments?¶

24 A. No.
25 Q. Pirulin, P-i-r-u-l-i-n, Group?¶

1 A. No.¶

2 Q. Shimone (phonetic) Levy, L-e-v-y?¶

3 A. No.
4 Q. Obidia Levy, O-b-i-d-e, I'm sorry, d-i-a?¶

5 A. No.
6 Q. Daniel Minkowitz, M-i-n-k-o-w-i-t-z?¶

7 A. No.
8 Q. Fortress, an entity know as Fortress
9 Investments or Fortress Capital?¶

10 A. No.
11 Q. Drawbridge?¶

12 A. No.
13 Q. Capital or funding?¶

14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of,
16 have you ever heard of, heard during that time
17 period, did you hear of or know a person named
18 [REDACTED] Levin, L-e-v-i-n?¶

19 A. No.
20 Q. Banyan Investment Fund?¶

21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you know or hear of the name [REDACTED]
23 Preve, P-r-e-v-e?¶

24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. Mr. Preve is purportedly, was¶

1 puiported to have an office within RRA's offices. 2 Have you seen that? 3 A. Have I seen what? 4 Q. Have you seen that in any of the news 5 media, that Mr. Prove had an office within RRA? 6 A. That name doesn't sound familiar at all. So, 7 no, the answer to your question is no, I haven't seen a that. 9 Q. Bill Brock? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. Who is Mr. Brock? 12 A. In the law fine he went by the tuune Uncle 13 Bill. 14 Q. Okay. All right. Who is Uncle Bill? 15 A. Who do I understand him to be? I don't know 16 who he really was. At this point in time looking back, 17 there is no telling what anyone, what anyone or anything 18 was. But at the time I believe that he was a relative 19 of Scott Rothstein's. 20 Q. What did he do? What did, what did Uncle 21 Bill do -- 22 A. Some - 23 Q. at the firm? 24 A. Something with money. 25 Q. Did he have an office at the fum?¶

• A. I think the trustees are still trying to 2 figure out what he exactly did do. 3 Q. Did you have any dealings with him? 4 A. Dealings, no, I didn't have dealings. 5 Q. Dealings of any kind? 6 A. I talked to him

• Q. Did you ever discuss any of 0 was he - he wasn't a lawyer? 9 A. Far from it. 10 Q. All right. Did you ever 4,ethpty of 11 your cases with him? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Just a hi, hello? 14 A. Hi, hellt'and I was tele of the lawyers who 15 would cam in often and work on weekends and he would be 16 there. That's Aro I would see him, and ho would kind 17 of, hey, how are you doing at a weekend. 18 Q. And do ycu know a III '<Teichner, 19 K-r-e4-c-h-m-a-t? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Same question *gain, do, these names 22 during the time period, Doug Van Annuli, 23 A-I-I-ms-n? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Ted Morse?

• 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

• A. No.

• Q. Ed Morse?

• A. No.

• Q. Richard Pearson, Pea-r-s-o-n?

• A. No.

• Q. Steven Levin,

• A. No.

• Q. Ira Sochet? S-h or Sochet,

• A. No.

• Q. Mark Melvin?

• A. No.

• Q. Jack Samoney (phonetic)? QA: MI?

• A. No.

• Q. Steve Jackel

• A. No.

• Q. Have yet ever heard an attorney name Michael Le 9

• A. , D-r-a-h-e-r? David Boden, do you know David Boden? 4%9 Yes. . Okay. Who is Mr. Roden, an associate —

• (S¹ A. Are you asking me what I blow now or what 1 2 thought then?

  • Q. Who did you understand Mr. Bodes, David 4 Boden to be when you became employed or associated 5 with RRA in April of '09? 6 A. In April of '09 I had not heard the name but 7 let's just skip to it. Sometime in let's say June or 8 July, I am guessing, sometime during the summer, I 9 understood him to be a lawyer at the firm. 10 Q. Did you understand, did you understand he 11 was a Florida lawyer or you just understood he was a 12 lawyer? 13 A. 1 understood he was a lawyer. I made the 14 presumption or assumption at that time that since he was 15 a lawyer for RRA that he was a Florida lawyer. 1 have 16 subsequently learned otherwise. 17 Q. Did you know, did you ever have any 18 business dealings with Mr. Boden? 19 A. Never spoke a word to the guy. 2o Q. What did you understand that he actually 21 did at the firm? 22 A. Had no idea. 23 Q. How about Andrew Barnett? 24 A. Don't View who that is. 25 Q. There was an individual, he is described

1 as the director of Corporate Development for RRA
2 A. I don't know even know what that means.
3 Q. Have you ever heard of the Centurion
4 Credit Fund or the Platinum Management Fund?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Alan Sakowitz?
7 A. No. Wait. Alan Sakowitz. I have heard that
8 name recently. I don't know why. I believe I actually
9 heard that name in a response. Never mind. In some
10 nonresponsive answer that your client gave, I heard that
11 name.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Keep going.
13 BY MR. CRITTON:
14 Q. Mr. [REDACTED]'s, with regard to your phone,
15 did you have a direct line at RRA?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What was that phone number?
18 A. I don't remember.
19 Q. And is your cellphone today the same as it
20 was back then?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And what's that number, please?
23 MR. SCAROLA: Cellphone number?
24 THE WITNESS: 954-294-9544.
25¶

1 Fistos is my partner now. Marc Nurik is the lawyer who
2 represents Scott Rothstein now. I don't know which it
3 was, but it was one of the two.
4 Q. Okay. Were you ever present at a meeting
5 where someone who you didn't know was present when
6 the Epstein case was discussed?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you ever asked to get on a phone call
9 where the Epstein cases were discussed that you
10 didn't, that you couldn't confirm who, you may have
11 someone who may have said this is Joe [REDACTED] on the
12 other line, but where you discussed the Epstein case
13 over the phone with another lawyer from your firm?
14 A. I don't understand that question.
15 Q. Did you ever make a phone call or did you
16 ever receive a phone call where you discussed the
17 Epstein case with another lawyer in your firm; that
18 is, that person --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- outside of the office?
21 A. What?
22 Q. Okay. Obviously you would get calls
23 within --
24 A. Even you.
25 Q. -- the confines of your office. Right. I¶

1 BY MR. CRITTON:
2 Q. Did you ever have a firm cellphone or just
3 your own personal cellphone?
4 A. No. Just my own personal cellphone.
5 Q. During the time that you were at the firm,
6 were you ever involved in making any type of a
7 presentation to anyone regarding the Epstein cases?
8 A. Including other lawyers within the firm?
9 Q. Let me rephrase it. I am going to
10 rephrase. You already told us that you have talked
11 about the Epstein cases with other lawyers, correct?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Were you ever present in a meeting where
14 there was a person whom you did not know wherein the
15 Epstein, where the Epstein cases were discussed?
16 A. No.
17 Q. At the owner when you met with Mr. Rothstein
18 in his office when Mr. Adler or whoever asked you to
19 come up that one time and there was Adler, Rothstein
20 and yourself, you said there was an individual on
21 the phone?
22 A. Right. It was another lawyer with the firm.
23 Q. And how do you know it was another lawyer
24 with the firm?
25 A. It was either Marc Nurik or Mark Fistos, Mark¶

1 understand that.
2 A. You fall in that category. I am having a hard
3 time.
4 Q. The question is did you ever have, were
5 you ever conferenced in on a call that was supposed
6 to be among RRA lawyers regarding an Epstein case?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did anyone ever request that you prepare a
9 summary of any of your Epstein cases that you in
10 turn sent by either e-mail or memo to anyone else?
11 A. I don't believe so.
12 Q. After you joined the RRA firm in April of
13 '09, did there come a point in time when you
14 requested that, that you requested the depositions
15 be taken out of state of a number of witness? Well,
16 let me ask you this question.
17 MR. CRITTON: Let me, let make it easy.
18 Let me show what I will mark as Exhibit 3.
19 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 was marked for
20 identification.)
21 BY MR. CRITTON:
22 Q. Before I get to that, Mr. [REDACTED], were
23 you aware of any cases that Mr. Rothstein himself
24 settled for over $5 million while you were employed
25 at the firm?¶

5 MR. CRITTON: I am sorry,¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: Exhibit, With¶

7 0 MR- CRITTON: Exhibit 3. Let me¶

10 MR. CRITTON: Dated July 22nd, 2009.¶

11 THE WITNESS: I recognize that.¶

12 BY MR. CRITTON:¶

13 14 15 16 17 Q. And do you recognize on Page 2, it says very truly yaws, Rothstein, Rosenfeld(, Alder and then there is a, whit ELears to be a signature and under that it says J. Esquire, partner tbrt (sic) the firm. Do you see that?¶

18 A. Yes, I see that.¶

19 Q. Do you recognize the signature?¶

20 A. No.¶

21 Q. Is that how you sign your name?¶

22 A. No.¶

23 24 Q. Do you know whose signature that is or purports to be?¶

25 A. I have absolutely no idea.¶

1 A. I was never aware of any cases that Rothstein 2 even handled much less settled.¶

3 Q. Were you aware of whether, did anyone ever a tell you whether Mr. Rothstein even did legal work 5 at the firm or whether he was just a rainmaker?¶

6 A. I no, no one ever told me one way or the 7 other.¶

8 Q. Would it be a correct statement that you 9 never saw him perform any legal work during the time 10 you were at the firm?¶

11 A. That's a correct statement.¶

12 Q. Would it he a correct statement as far as 13 you knew he was 'dad of a gadfly going to his 14 various business ventures and then he would hole 15 himself up in the office.¶

16 A. lie was the guy on the billboards and at the 17 Triple A arena and everything else marketing the firm 18 and bringing business in, and that's at least what I 19 believe he did. If it's true or not, I don't know to 20 this day.¶

21 Q. With regard to Exhibit 3, do you recognize 22 this e-mail?¶

23 A. !Admit recognize the e-mail.¶

24 Q. Do you recognize, and I will represent to 25 you that I received the e-mail. It was sent to me¶

1 as well although I am not shown as a recipient, I 2 received e-mail.¶

3 THE WITNESS: Are you talking 4 fax?¶

again. Exhibit 3 is a tax. THE WITNESS: Correct.¶

6 7¶

Q. Do you recall sending or directing that this facsimile be sent. Or let me strike that. Who was your secretary at that time? Who is, well, BIE is you. Who is the MGL?¶

A_ Who is the MGL? Let's see.¶

There are your initials, BJE, and then MGL. Do you =OW= .¶

A. No. I mean, as you are very aware problems with secretaries during that period of time, i, I had more than my share and that could have been a time period where I did not have a legal assistant at all. And i do not recognize the initials MGL to identify anybody that I know.¶

Q. With regard to the individuals who were listed in Exhibit 3, specifically Donald Trump, Leslie Wexner, Clinton, with those individuals, you sent out this facsimile or at least your office sent out the fax, Exhibit 3, requesting dates for these individuals to be deposed, correct?¶

A_ Yes.¶

,Q. An right. Prior to your joining RRA you had OEM requested either that the deposition of 4Mr. Trump be taken, Mr. Wexner, nor Bill Clinton, correct?¶

A. I never requested a deposition to be taken including any deposition of those three individuals.¶

Q. I understand but all right.¶

A. The answer to your question is, yes. Q. All right. Thank you. Paula Heil, do you¶

know who that person is?¶

A. Do I know who it is? I know that it's .umebudy who was Involved with near Stems at some point in time.¶

Q. You also requested data, and in fact served a subpoena on Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, correct?¶

A. Correct.¶

Q. And Mr. Dershowitz you were aware was one of Mr. Epstein's anninal defense lawyers, correct?¶

A. At some point in time, I {mew that in the past he had been an attorney of Mr. Epstein.¶

Q. Well, you had, you had certain records from the State Attorney's Office, didn't you. or from the police report?¶

A. And that's what I'm saying, yes, involved in the civil cases with us, no, I didn't know that he had involvement. But, yes, I did know he was a former --¶

Q. Prn sorry, go ahead —¶

A. !did know that he was a former attorney of¶

• 1 Jeff Epstein. 2 Q. Well, you also understood Mr. Epstein has 3 had ongoing criminal law Issues even dining the time 4 of the civil raise, comet?

• A. No. 6 Q. Sure. Well, you were aware that 7 Mr. Epstein was operating under the nonprosecution 8 agreement, that he was bound by the, a 9 nonprosecution agreement, correct? 10 A. I'm aware of the existence of a nonprosecution 11 agreement. 12 Q. Well, and in fact you cant into possession 13 of the nonprosecution agreement sopa:dim in 2008 14 because Judge Marra ordered that, ordered the United is States Government to turn over to all of the 16 attorneys and the clients who were listed as alleged 17 victmw, correct? 18 A. Yet 19 Q. So, you had possession of the N.P.A. as of 20 scarttione in the year 2008, correct? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. All right. And so you, and you were aware 23 that under the nonprosecution agreement Mr. Epstein 24 was required to meet certain requirements, that 25 Mr. Epstein had a requirement to meet certain

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 standards or certain provisions of the agreement otherwise the U.S.A. could potentially declare was a breach of the agreement, true? 3

  • A. !suppose. fr' 4
  • Q. Well, you're a former prosecutors too,io you knew what a nonprosecution agreement was, true?
  • A. No, I had never seen a nonpiosocution agreement in my life before this one. I

• Q. When you got the =prosecution agreement, 10 you reviewed it? " 11 A. Yes, I did. 12 Q. So, you were familiar with? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. And you understood from at least looking 15 at the police report that you had access to, that 16 Mr. Dershowits had represented Mr. Epstein with 17 regard to negotiating his plea that ultimately was 18 reached in negotiations with the federal government, 19 true? 20 A. l 'mew he played a role. 21 Q. Now, with regard to Mr., with regard to 22 the depositions of — well, let me strike that. 23 Also listed both on your, on Jane Doe's and LW.'s 24 and E.W.'s updated interrogatory answers which were 25 provided during the year 2009, an individual named

• 1 2 3 5 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 4 6 Tommy Mottola was listed. Do you know who Mr. Moneta is?

  • A. Generally I think I know who that ts
  • Q. Who did you understand Mr. Mottola was?
  • A. Something to do with the music industry.
  • Q. All right. And the name David Copperfield was also referenced as a potential Mums in the case, correct?
    • A. That is correct
  • Q. All right And did you and you, in fact, attempted to coordinate a deposition for Mr. Copperfield; is that comet? __ MR. '- MR. SCAROLA: AM you asking about whether communications occurred
  • R. you — MR. CRITTON: Sirs MR. SCAROLA; -- regarding such a deposition. BY MR. CRTITON:
  • Q. Let me rephrase it With regard to the lawyers in the case, including myself you attempted to coordinate a time for completing or taking the deposition of Mr. Copperfield, Mr. Mottola, who I S will is the fanner president of Sony 5z a..>. Azitecords, former president Bill Clinton, Alan Desshowitz, Donald Trump, and Leslie Wexner, true?

• 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

• A. False.

• Q. Which of those, as to which one of those is that false?

  • A. Tunny Mottola.

• Q. So, but you did attempt to coordinate the depositions of Donald Dump, Mr. Dershowitz corner president Clinton, David Copperfield, and Leslie Wexner, correct? A I believe see

• Q. And with regard to Mr., well, let me strike that. In setting these depositions; that is, in requesting these deposition be taken sometime in June and July of 2009 or requesting dates for them, did you have discussions with other attorneys in your firm as to the benefits that would exist in your case, your three cases against Mr. Epstein by taking these individuals' depositions? MR. SCAROLA: Objection. Same as grounds previously stated; instruct you not to answer. BY MR. CRITTON:

• Q. Mr. were you involved in the discussions regarding the deposing of any of the people of these individuals, Mr. Trump; that is, in discussions with any other lawyers in your firm including Scott Rothstein?

1 A. Weissing.
2 Q. Or RRA, Mr. Howell, or Mr. Cassell have
3 any interest in those cases?
4 A. No.
5 Q. At any time -- let me strike that. You
6 are aware that Mr. Alfredo [REDACTED] has pled guilty to
7 an obstruction of justice charge based on the news?
8 A. I don't know Alfredo [REDACTED] at all.
9 Q. Sorry about that. The head of Alfredo
10 [REDACTED]. With regard Mr. Rodriguez, Alfredo
11 Rodriguez, are you aware through news reports that
12 he pled guilty to obstruction of justice?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. At any time have you been given access to
15 the pamphlet book and/or any of the yellow pages
16 that have been referenced in the criminal
17 indictment?
18 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to instruct you
19 not answer that question on the basis of
20 attorney-client and work-product privilege.
21 BY MR. CRITTON:
22 Q. Has the, have you been, have you had any
23 contact with the criminal defense lawyer for
24 Mr. Rodriguez?
25 MR. SCAROLA: You can answer yes or no.¶

1 the information that is held by the FBI which would
2 include the pamphlet and the yellow, the pamphlet
3 and the yellow pages, true?
4 A. I have. Adam Horowitz has, and I may or may
5 not have piggybacked his motion. But as sitting here
6 right now, I, I don't remember drafting that motion.
7 Q. Are you sure he hasn't piggybacked your
8 motion?
9 A. I'm not sure. If you show me my motion, I can
10 tell you whether I drafted it or not.
11 Q. Have you --
12 A. That, that was certainly an idea.
13 Q. Have, have you also -- you have also
14 served a motion to obtain FBI files that relate to
15 Mr. Epstein; is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Okay. Have you spoken as a result of the
18 motion that you filed, has the government, have you
19 spoken with the United States Attorney's Office or
20 representatives for the FBI with regard to the
21 motion which you filed?
22 MR. SCAROLA: Objection, privilege and
23 instruct you not to answer.
24 BY MR. CRITTON:
25 Q. Have you received any type of response¶

1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 BY MR. CRITTON:
3 Q. Have you had any communication, not a
4 conversation but any communication with the criminal
5 defense lawyer about obtaining a copy of the
6 pamphlet and/or the pamphlet book or the yellow
7 pages that are referenced in the criminal indictment
8 that were at one time in the possession of Mr.
9 Rodriguez and that he apparently was trying to sell
10 to the cooperating witness?
11 MR. SCAROLA: I am going to instruct you
12 not to answer any question about anything that
13 you may have done in connection with the
14 fulfillment of your responsibilities as counsel
15 for the Plaintiffs in the three pending cases.
16 BY MR. CRITTON:
17 Q. Again, of course you're going to continue
18 to follow Mr. Scarola's direction?
19 A. On what I have done or what I have not done,
20 all of that is work-product.
21 Q. Well, you have filed a motion to obtain a
22 copy of the pamphlet book and the yellow pages of
23 Mr. Rodriguez, correct? I am sorry, either a
24 motion -- well, strike that. You have filed a
25 motion in federal court to obtain a copy of the, of¶

1 from the United States Attorney's Office or the FBI
2 with regard to the motion that you have filed?
3 MR. SCAROLA: You may answer that only
4 with respect to those matters that are matters
5 of public record; that is, if a response has
6 been filed with the court or provided to you in
7 the form of a pleading, you may respond.
8 THE WITNESS: I cannot respond to that
9 question.
10 MR. CRITTON: All right. We're going to
11 quit at 5. I don't want to go on.
12 MR. SCAROLA: You already, you already
13 missed that.
14 MR. CRITTON: All right. Well, let's,
15 I'll adjourn the deposition today, and I will
16 arrange with you for a time to finish.
17 MR. SCAROLA: Well, so that the record is
18 clear, it is our position that you have had
19 more than adequate time to conduct an
20 appropriate examination of Mr. [REDACTED], and we
21 will resist any further effort to depose him.
22 MR. CRITTON: I understand your position.
23 Disagree with it but understand it.
24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you.
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes today's¶

videotape deposition of Scott Rothstein. The time is --¶

THE WITNESS: Whoa, whoa.¶

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. [REDACTED]¶

THE WITNESS: Please don't lump me in with that guy, man.¶

MR. SCAROLA: This concludes the deposition of Mr. [REDACTED].¶

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm sorry. This concludes the deposition of Mr. [REDACTED].¶

The time is 5:07 p.m.¶

(A discussion was held off the record.)¶

THE COURT REPORTER: Did you want to order this?¶

MR. CRITTON: Ask me tomorrow.¶

MR. SCAROLA: I will take a copy of it. Let's stay on the record. We don't need to be on the video record but I want to make the statement that we would consider it entirely inappropriate for any portion of this deposition to be used for any reason whatsoever that is not directly connected with the prosecution of the pending claim against Mr. [REDACTED] or the defense of the¶

counterclaims. Thank you.¶

MR. CRITTON: Bye.¶

MR. SCAROLA: Bye.¶

(Witness excused.)
(Deposition was concluded.)¶

CERTIFICATE OF OATH
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

I the undersigned authority, certify that [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], ESQUIRE personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on the 23rd day of March, 2010.¶

Dated this 5th day of April, 2010.¶

Cynthia J. Hopkins¶

Cynthia [REDACTED], RPR, FPR
Notary Public - State of Florida
My Commission Expires: February 25, 2011
My Commission No.: DD 643788¶

CERTIFICATE
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

I, Cynthia [REDACTED], Registered Professional Reporter, Florida Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in stenotype, and that the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said deposition.
I further certify that said deposition was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and that the taking of said deposition was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out.¶

I further certify that I am not attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.¶

The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
Dated this 5th day of April, 2010.¶

Cynthia J. Hopkins
Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR¶

1 DATE: April 30, 2010
2 TO: [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ESQUIRE
3 o/0 JACK Scarda, Esquire
4 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA,
5 BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
6 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
7 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

8 IN RE: Epstein vs. Rothstein
9 CASE NO.: 50 2009CA0408000000000000000000 AG¶

10 Please take notice that on Tuesday, the 23rd of
11 March, 2010, you gave your deposition in the
12 above-referred matter. At that time, you did not
13 waive signature. It is now necessary that you sign
14 your deposition.¶

15 As previously agreed to, the transcript will be
16 furnished to you through your counsel. Please read
17 the following instructions carefully.¶

18 At the end of the transcript you will find an
19 errata sheet. As you read your deposition, any
20 changes or corrections that you wish to make should
21 be noted on the errata sheet, citing page and line
22 number of said change. DO NOT write on the
23 transcript itself. Once you have read the
24 transcript and noted any changes, be sure to sign,
25 and date the errata sheet and return these pages to me.¶

16 If you do not read and sign the deposition
17 within a reasonable time, the original, which has
18 already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may
19 be filed with the Clerk of the Court. If you wish
20 to waive your signature, sign your name in the blank
21 at the bottom of this letter and return it to us.¶

22 Very truly yours,
23 Cynthia J. Stopkins
24 Cynthia [REDACTED] JPR, FPR¶

25 I do hereby waive my signature.
26 [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ESQUIRE¶

1 CERTIFICATE¶

2 ---
3 THE STATE OF FLORIDA
4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH¶

5 I hereby certify that I have read the foregoing
6 deposition by me given, and that the statements
7 contained herein are true and correct to the best of
8 my knowledge and belief, with the exception of any
9 corrections or notations made on the errata sheet,
10 if one was executed.¶

11 Dated this _____ day of _____
12 2010.¶

13 BRADLEY J. [REDACTED] ESQUIRE
14 Job #1333
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25¶

1 ERRATA SHEET¶

2 IN RE: EPSTEIN VS. ROTHSTEIN¶

3 CR: Cynthia [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ESQUIRE¶

4 TAKEN: March 23, 2010¶

5 JOB NO.: 1333¶

6 DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE
7 PAGE # LINE # CHANGE REASON¶

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19¶

20
21
22 DATE: _____
23
24 SIGNATURE OF
25 DEPONENT: _____¶

Please forward the original signed errata sheet to
this office so that copies may be distributed to all
parties.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read
my deposition and that it is true and correct
subject to any changes in form or substance entered
here.¶

DATE: _____¶

SIGNATURE OF
DEPONENT: _____¶