IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE Air 1 bENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 502009CA040800X3003/B JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff'Counter-Defendant, -VS- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and J. individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. A Cos ### SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF/CCHEM DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR COURT TO DECLARE' RELEVANCE AND NON-PRIVILEGED NATURE OF DOCUMENTS, AND RI UEST FOR ADDITIONAL LIMITED DISCOVERY EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND APPOINTMENT OF AND THE UPPLEMENTT I THAT M TI N Counter-Plaintiff and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Supplemental Response to P •er-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Court to Declare Relevance and Non-Pr ture of Documents, and Request for Additional Limited Discovery, Evidentiary t eating ar and Appointment of Special ("Motion to Declare Relevance") and cup pl ent to that motion, and as grounds therefore states: ### INTRODUCTION has already determined that Epstein may not admit into evidence or otherwise refer to ihbprivileged documents in question. This Court's decision was based upon the fact that Epstein and his counsel had possession of the materials for years, in violation of a federal court order, yet failed to timely list them as exhibits, in violation of multiple court orders and rulings. Epstein also failed to seek a determination before the close of discovery as to the privileged nature of the documents, despite the fact that most of them were included on a privilege log filed in this Court in April 2012. Not one to take no for an answer, Epstein is back yet another bite at this already wellchewed apple. Epstein has raised no new issues here which should support a different result than this Court has already ordered. To the contrary, the instant Motion was pending whe this Court made the decision to strike Epstein's amended exhibit list which included th ments in question. This Court heard significant argument on the issue before is extensive, thoughtful ruling. There is absolutely no reason for this Court to s n ore time than it already has considering this issue. Epstein's Motion to Declare van must be denied. ### RELEVANT FA Although this Court is familiar with the issu ihc, i h as it already heard argument and ruled on it, includes a recitation of v facts to remind this Court why it struck the late filed exhibits, including the pn ed t7Jdterials identified in 2012 privilege log. ### The Discovery Orders Violatal by Epstein N14/...." On July 20, 2017 ourt entered its Order Specially Setting Trial, which set the case for trial beginnin cem r 5, 2017. In its Order, the Court required that the Pm-Trial Stipulation e include "cac s numbered list of trial exhibits with specific objections, if any, to schedules attach stipulation." (emphasis added). The Court made clear that the parties would be "strictly limited to exhibits ... disclosed ... on the schedules attached to the Pre-Trial Stipulation ...absent agreement specifically stated in the Pm-Trial Stipulation or order of the Court upon good cause shown." (emphasis added). Thus, the Court's July 20, 2017 Order limited the parties to only those trial exhibits that were specifically identified and disclosed on the Pm-Trial Stipulation. In October and November 2017, the parties began exchanging exhibit lists and producing proposed exhibits in connection with the Court's Order. Epstein's Exhibit List listed as Exhibit #13, "miscellaneous," the broadest catch-all provision possible: All documents produced by any party or non-party in this matter. At the December 5, 2017 hearing, after continuing the trial until March at th request of Epstein, the Court instructed that any identified exhibits not previously produced rovided to opposing counsel by no later than December 19, 2017. See, e.g" (12/5 225-226). A copy of the transcript is attached at Exhibit A. The Court also cauti eneral "catch-all" exhibit categories would not be permitted and that, instead, At V 'ec i documents covered by t, such exhibits must be separately identified and produced. e e. 12/5/17 Tr. at 223- 225). The message to the parties was clear: trial by ambush w SS permitted.' On December 19, 2017, Epstein produ i of certain listed exhibits pursuant to that directive. Epstein's Exhibit #13 contain en ven (27) RRA emails. None of these emails were listed on five (5) r vilege log, discussed further below. On December 22, 2017 the ies filed the Pre-Trial Stipulation. Epstein's Exhibit List was attached to the Pre- 4 L tipulation. A copy of the Exhibit List Stipulation is attached as Exhibit B. Eps ( S i it e #13 was comprised of the 27 emails that had been specifically identified and p ant to the Court's December 5, 2017 ruling and the December 19, 2017 exhibit The Court's oral ruling was memorialized on January 16, 20. 81\_ i when the Court entered its Order on Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine Section B ( 1 Trial Exhibits). This Order required to produce all trial exhibits that had not already been produced by December 20, 2017 and to produce all specific exhibits to a general "catch-all" category by no later than January 5, 2018. Although the Order did not specifically require Epstein to do the same, the reason was straightforward: Epstein claimed that he already produced all specific trial exhibits on December 19, 2017. exchange, Epstein was "strictly limited" to those 27 specific documents absent a showing of good cause, which would necessarily require the filing of some motion seeking relief from the Court. Throughout February 2018, Epstein began piecemeal producing additional proposed exhibits, in violation of the orders discussed above. Epstein's violation of the Court's orders culminated on March 2, 2018, with the eve-of-trial2 production of 198 new emails, all illicitly obtained, under Exhibit #13, which included at least forty-nine (49) privileged ema are listed on April 2012 privilege log. 14C ' On March 5, 2018, Epstein filed the instant Motion to Declare a c .3 That same day, moved to strike Epstein's supplemental exhibits a s e all exhibits and any reference to documents contained in April 201 p 'yr log. On March 8, 2017, this Court held a heart Sin lefrv 1 outstanding motions. One issue addressed involved Epstein's late disclosure o eged documents. suggested that his motion to strike be addressed first b it Id alleviate the need to delve into other issues related to Epstein's intended use o eged emails (3/8/18 PM Tr. pp. 3-7). A copy of the transcript is attached as Exhib er extensive argument by counsel, the Court granted the motion to strike, finding stein should have produced the documents in question and raised any issues relatin the ed nature of the documents long before the already expired time for the produ lion f exhibits. The Court explained: materials were in the hands of Epstein's attorneys from the inception of the issicitself, and to now come to the Court with not five pages of documents to look at, but 27,000, or whatever that number is — it escapes me because of its shear mass — is impossible and is not going to be countenanced here. •\*\* 2 Trial was set to begin on March 13, 2018. 3 Epstein filed a supplement to the Motion on April 4, 2018 and filed supplemental authority on April 5, 2018. The issue though, is one of whether the protocol and the orderly administration of justice is going to be forsaken notwithstanding also the aspect of privilege and the sanctity of privileged communications, whether all of those considerations are going to be thrown out when balanced against material that has been in the hands of Mr. Epstein's lawyers from day one. And I, for one, am not going to sacrifice protocol over what may or may not be, number one, privileged, and if not privileged, certainly late disclosed documentation of a massive nature. \*\*\* Again, if this was something that came into play that was being hidden by the o er side, and I'm talking now generically, and your side discovered that informs i at the 11th how, this would be an entirely different discussion And that's o things 1 want to emphasize for this record. But that's not the case. As I mentioned — and this is the last time I'll say it — these docu a e been in the possession of Mr. Epstein from the inception of this ase know it. They didn't move. And the problems that are inherent in this of which this Court simply does not have the time to address prior to re of these reasons that I have just described to you: The disruption oft rly administration of justice, the sacrosanct nature of the privilege, and?\* re importance is what I said I wouldn't repeat; and that is, that at all times material to the analysis, from the inception Epstein lawyers had/this material, And obviously, the timeliness, or the abject untimeliness gthe request for the Court now to take these matters into consideration, w e they are well beyond when exhibits that were known or should have b e nown were not listed. \*\*\* That's the point I'm trying to timeliness, not only the i foremost is the fact that this from day one for s and emphasize. It is not only the issue of vilege that has not been tested, but first and te, Epstein's own lawyers, have been sitting on t years. (3/18/18 PM Tr., pp.51-5 exhibits, regardl case but fail t until months after the deadline to do so had expired. asis added). Thus, this Court found that Epstein could not utilize nvilege issue, which he had possession of since the beginning of the ## TimeliJcQ 1Le nrivileaed materials at issue In order to orient the Court as to the specific issue of privilege log, has compiled the following timeline concerning the privileged e-mail communications at issue. Because the privileged materials are e-mail communications from RRA, Epstein originally sought these records in the Bankruptcy Court to be produced by the Trustee appointed to oversee the RRA bankruptcy proceeding. has highlighted the key state court docket entries for the Court's convenience: | State Court December 7, 2009 Epstein ' | this suit against Rothstein, and | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | | one of | clients, designate " ." Epstein | | claimed, generally, that Rothstein, | and L.M. | | three civil sexual assault actions | bro t against | | April 17, 2010 Epstein propounded a broad subpoena | T tee for | | RRA as an interested party in the ban .• • | case of In re: | | Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 09-3479 a | esting tens | | bankruptcy trustee because the Mc . | in possession of | | July 19, 2010 LM (one of Epste | ' \*cti s) filed an objection and | | amended motion f. | ' order, DE 819, explaining | | that the emails | t were barred from disclosure | | based on priv. e | d levance grounds. | | August 13, 2010 Judge R ' | bankruptcy action entered aiiiiii | | directi pro | ion of the emails to a special | | Jud e | , appointed to oversee the emails produced | | r | e a privilege log. DE 888. | | September 20, 201 | aving received 27,590 emails, Special | | | ey moved for clarification of the Or made | | | s ggestions that LM's attorneys, including were | | mbe 7, 2010 Ili carp | moved for protective order through counsel Jack | | 4) tember 30, 2010 LM joined in that DE 1022 motion and requested further | | | October 13, 2010 | Hearing on Motion to Clarify before Robert Carney. | | Bankruptcy Court | October 15, 2010 | The bankruptcy court entered an Order which clarified its earlier Order, DE 1068, requiring that the trustee provide the emails at issue to [REDACTED] Jaffe Weissing [REDACTED] Fistos Lehrman ([REDACTED] firm at the time which was representing LM) and requesting FJWEFL prepare the log. The order also provided a procedure for the special [REDACTED] to hold a hearing about assertions of privilege. | | ----------------------- | ----------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | State Court | November 23, 2010 | Epstein filed his amended privilege log. | | Bankruptcy Court | November 30, 2010 | The court authorized Epstein's predecessor counsel, [REDACTED] [REDACTED], to copy the RRA emails and to provide copies to Judge Carney and FJWEFL. The court expressly prohibited [REDACTED] [REDACTED] from retaining any copies of the documents. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit D. | | Bankruptcy Court | December 16, 2010 | LM filed a motion requesting a stay of the Order directing the preparation of a privilege log until after the time when the State court ruled on the then pending Motion for Summary Judgment, DE 1236. | | Bankruptcy Court | December 22, 2010 | Bankruptcy court entered an order extending the time for production of the privilege log until January 31, 2011. DE 1260. | | State Court | January 25, 2011 | FJWEFL produced 8,408 pages of non-privileged documents to Epstein. | | Bankruptcy Court | January 26, 2011 | FJWEFL served a privilege log, and the sufficiency of that log was challenged by Epstein in the bankruptcy court. DE 1442. | | State Court | February 8, 2011 | Epstein filed a Motion to Compel/Motion to Determine if Privilege Claims are Waived for failure to provide a privilege log. | | Bankruptcy Court | February 15, 2011 | FJWEFL filed a privilege log in the Bankruptcy Court. | | Bankruptcy Court | February 23, 2011 | FJWEFL filed an updated privilege log (the current privilege log) detailing the emails where privilege was being maintained. In addition to filing the privilege log, FJWEFL produced to counsel for Epstein, 12,711 pages of documents divided into two separate categories respectively labeled "attorneys eyes only" and "[REDACTED] Jaffe Irrelevant E-Mails." Two boxes of "attorneys eyes only" documents were produced containing 1,829 pages of documents in the first box and 3,198 pages of documents in the second box. Two additional boxes of "Farmer Jaffe Irrelevant E-Mails" were also produced containing 3,804 pages of documents in the first box and 3,880 pages of documents in the second box | | ----------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | State Court | March 30, 2011 | Judge [REDACTED] entered an order staying the subpoena to the trustee. | | State Court | July 12, 2011 | Epstein's Motion for Leave to Use Attorneys Eyes Only Documents produced under confidentiality agreement. | | State Court | July 14, 2011 | [REDACTED] protective order granted. Epstein request for all emails is overbroad and not necessarily calculated to lead to admissible evidence. | | State Court | March 9, 2012 | Epstein Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order relating to the subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee. | | State Court | April 10, 2012 | Order requiring [REDACTED] to produce any non-privileged documents as identified in paragraph 13 of [REDACTED] Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order. | | State Court | April 11, 2012 | Epstein files [REDACTED] February 23, 2011 Privilege Log from the Bankruptcy Court in this case. This Privilege Log identifies many of the privileged materials that Epstein is now attempting to use at trial. | | State Court | April 11, 2012 | Epstein Motion to Compel production of documents from [REDACTED] and for Sanctions. | | State Court | May 7, 2012 | [REDACTED] produces 163 pages of additional responsive documents in compliance with April 10, 2012 Order | | State Court | May 8, 2012 | Order requiring better Privilege Log | | State Court | May 15, 2012 | [REDACTED] Motion for Clarification on Discovery Issues to clarify the scope of the May 8, 2012 Order. | | State Court | May 15, 2012 | Epstein Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions | | ------------------ | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | State Court | May 30, 2012 | Epstein Amended Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions | | State Court | August 3, 2012 | Hearing on Motion for Clarification on Discovery Issues. | | State Court | August 14, 2012 | Scarola letter to Judge [REDACTED] enclosing proposed Order on Motion for Clarification on Discovery Issues.

Provided before Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against [REDACTED] | | State Court | August 16, 2012 | Epstein voluntarily dismisses case against Edwards without prejudice. | | State Court | August 17, 2012 | Judge [REDACTED] grants Edwards' Motion for Clarification and vacates his [REDACTED] y 8, 2012 Order requiring an amended privilege log. 4

[REDACTED] April 12, 2012 Privilege Log remained in full force and effect. Epstein never challenged the sufficiency of that privilege log or made any attempt to overrule Edwards' privilege assertions or compel production of these privilege materials. | To summarize, with a total of 27,590 emails to evaluate. On January 25, 2011, produced 08 ges of non-privileged emails to Epstein. On February 23, 2011, produce ditional 12,711 pages of emails, which included 5,027 pages of emails that were "Attorney's Eyes Only." Between the January 25 and February 23, turned over 21,119 pages of emails to Epstein. properly listed 4 Judge Order also required to "file a written response specifically addressing the production sought in Paragraph 13 of Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order of March 9, 2012 ... [the response] shall identify, in a proper privilege log as referenced in the Court's May 7, 2012 Order, responsive documents withheld from production on the basis of any assertion of privilege." Paragraph 13 of Epstein's Motion to Com I concerned emails between RRA lawyers and either (1) the Federal Government; (2) .iairas anc reporters. Because Epstein had already voluntarily dismissed his action against • did not produce any written response to Paragraph 13 or any emails between RRA and these third parties. Epstein thereafter made no effort to seek production of these emails. the remaining 6,471 pages of emails on his privilege log filed on February 23, 2011 in the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to Epstein's July 12, 2011 Motion for Leave to Use Attorneys' Eyes Only Documents Produced Under Confidentiality Agreement, the Attorneys' Eyes-Only documents are governed by a confidentiality agreement. On April 11, 2012, Epstein filed privilege log from the bankruptcy case in this case. Pursuant to Judge August 17, 2012 Order vacating his prior Order r Edwards to file a better privilege log, the February 23, 2011 privilege log filed in this case on April 11, 2012 remains in full force and effect. '...) ) c After voluntarily dismissing his claims against tc ever sought to overrule any of these privilege assertions or to compel production t leged materials listed on the log. Epstein has obviously been on notice of the pri n e of those documents knew they had been withheld from production, and for the eve of trial, abandoned all efforts to challenge privilege assertions. ### ARGUMENT - 1. All argument in Epst t( 's Motion to Declare Relevance and Supplement stating or otherwise implying the tiged substance of the documents in question should be stricken and/or ded. tains "that the late listed and illicitly obtained materials in question are privileged, in the privilege log filed in this Court in April 2012, which has been in full force for over six (6) years. Unfortunately, due to Epstein's improper prior possession of the documents in question, Epstein and his counsel have seen the content of the materials. Epstein has improperly referred to, mischaracterized, and relied upon the contents of the materials to support his position in the instant motion and supplement. contests Epstein's mischaracterization of the contents of the material but he cannot address the issue further as he does not want to be accused of waiving his privilege claims. Suffice it to say, strongly disagrees with the characterizations of the contents of the emails in question portrayed by Epstein. asks that this Court strike and/or disregard all such improper references to the contents of the materials sidering this issue as Epstein should never have been in possession of the material with. Epstein should not be permitted to e on his improper possession of th ed materials by purporting to rely tent of said materials, especially where cannot contest the allegations m ### 2. This Court should readdress this issue whi cu• ) l has ready decided. As discussed above, on March 8, 2018, this Co significant time considering the issue of whether Epstein could use the privile item ents in question during trial. The instant motion was pending at the time an f tw s, n rily considered in conjunction with Motion to Strike Epstein's 1 tied ibits. Based on the Court's decision that the exhibits would be excluded beca h e filed months after the deadline for listing exhibits, despite the fact that Epstein's Apunsell ad possessed the documents since the inception of these proceedings, the Court di' to address the issues raised in Epstein's Motion (i.e., determine relevance and pri es, hold in camera proceedings, etc). Epste venth-hour antics have cost this Court and enough time. The Court should waste more time reconsidering an issue which has already been decided. Epstein's Motion should be denied without further discussion for the reasons expressed by the Court in its oral ruling on March 8, 2018. ### 3. The deadline to amend exhibit lists has long since passed. maintains his position expressed in his March 5, 2018 Motion to Strike, argued on March 8. All exhibits produced by Epstein after December 20, 2017 in violation of this Court's July 20, 2017 Order, December 5, 2017 oral ruling, and January 16, 2018 Order should be stricken. Additionally, all exhibits produced by Epstein that contain or reference privilegyd material included on Court's oral ruling on March 8, 2017. April 2012 privilege log should be stricken. This is co with this Although does not believe that this Court should expdhd t e to consider the merits of Epstein's arguments, addresses them below. ## 4. did not waive his work product objec . "Attorney-client privilege and work-prod 8 u n are important protections in the adversarial legal system, and any breach of th p 4s,i give one party an undue advantage over the other party." Nevin v. Palm Be oun Sch. Bd., 958 So.2d 1003, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, "waiver of th lient and work-product privileges is not favored in Florida." TIG Ins. Corp. of Am. on, 799 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). - a. against did ve work product protection for all but new and ongoing cases Epstei waived work product protections as to the materials in question ( . 6-8).5 By including the documents on his privilege log instead of turning them over to Ep in This contention is obviously absurd. 5 This is a reference to the Supplement to Epstein's Motion to Declare Relevance, filed on April 4, 2018. Epstein relies upon excerpts from an email sent by former firm, Jaffe Weissing Fistos Lehrman, to Judge Carney, discussing the management of the production of the thousands of RRA emails Epstein subpoenaed. The relevant portion of that emails provides: We will agree to prepare a revised log in which we add dates for the emails and a description of the subject matter and parties. But we will also omit from the log any work product privilege objections, subject to the following agreement. All ork product materials will be turned over to Plaintiff except for materials related t ew or ongoing cases, AND on the condition that th are r ed "F i r A Eyes Only" such that no copies or images will be made of them and 'ra in 1 not see these documents, unless and until such time as Judge ii udge Ray has overruled any privilege claim (following your recomm- d . • 'rt, of course). If the objections are sustained, the documents will be us and no copies retained by Plaintiff's attorneys; if the objections ov#ruled and the documents otherwise deemed discoverable, Plaintiff ge m. The Plaintiff and his attorneys will also agree that by enterin to is agreement and producing these documents as described, Plai flnot take the position that we have waived any privilege. it (Supp., Ex. B)(underline in original, bold added) , th agreement contemplated that even as to documents actually turned over to Epste cow14eI for "Attorneys' Eyes Only" review, any claim of privilege would not be waiv Epstein's argument app o \]fat because he believes the documents in question should have been turned over for Atto Eyes Only review and they were not, waived his work product protec 'on cl m . This argument is meritless. Regardless of whether the documents in question s been turned over for Attorneys' Eyes Only review pursuant to the agreemen the parties, the protection would never have been waived. That is because the parties a that the privilege would not be waived as to documents turned over for Attorneys' Eyes Only review. In addition, the emails that Epstein relies upon clearly state that materials related to ongoing cases are exempt from that agreement, which includes emails related to the Crime Victim's Rights Act proceeding. Thus, none of the emails in question were subject to production at all, whether Attorney's Eyes Only or any other form. Furthermore, the documents in question were not, in fact, turned over. They were listed in the privilege log. There is no support for the implication raised by Epstein that the alleged failure to properly execute an agreement regarding the management of purported work-product waives the work product privilege, especially where the documents are listed on a privilege log and where the privilege would have maintained regardless of how they were addressed. To the co trary, even if had originally agreed to turn over the documents for Attorneys' Eyes view, he was free to reassert the right to include the documents in his privilege t time before disclosure. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lease Am., Inc., 735 So.2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999Xnoting that the initial failure to make a claim for privile the privilege); see also Truly Nolen Exterminating, Inc. nlljlon, 554 So.2d 5, 5-6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989Xfailure to assert work-product privile, result in the waiver of t opportunity does not constitute waiver "so long as the privilege is asserted by s p r, to the trial court, before there has been an actual disclosure of the information ged be protected"), rev. dismissed, 558 So.2d 20 (Fla.1990); Insurance Co. of N. A 398 So.2d 836, 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (failure to file timely objections does not pa from asserting privilege). - b. did r jYpjve work product protection by sharing the documents with third parties. sos Epstei te that waived the work product protections by providing the materials to attorneys from Conrad & Scherer working on the Razorback litigation (Supp., p.:' nrad & Sherer, however, entered into a joint prosecution agreement with counsel, whereby both parties agreed to share information relative to their claims and/or defenses related to Scott Rothstein without waiving privilege as to their communications or documents shared. "Voluntary disclosure of alleged work product waives work-product privilege where that disclosure is inconsistent with maintaining secrecy from the disclosing party's adversary—or, in other words, the disclosure substantially increases the chance that the opposing party will obtain the information." Tumelaire v. Naples Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 137 So.3d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Here, disclosure to Conrad & Scherer was not inconsistent with his intent to maintain secrecy from Epstein. To the contrary the disclosure was done to a joint prosecution agreement whereby not be disclosed to adverse parties, including Epstein. and Conrad & Scherer agreed tO serial would - c. did not waive work product protection by ' ing malicious prosecution claim. Epstein claims that the work product protectiorjJi feejt fvaived here because the emails at issue directly relate to issues "injec MI11160113 prosecution counterclaim6 (Supp., pp.9-10). This argument is meritle It is well-established that "[a] bringing or defending a lawsui CCS ad not waive the attorney-client privilege merely by Akerman, Sentetfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). , waiver occurs when a party 'raises a claim that will necessarily req \*re pr f y way of a privileged communication.'" Id. (quoting Jenney v. Airdata Wima c., 6 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)); see also Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817, 1957)(noting that the "at issue" doctrine provides that "when a party has filed a claim, b upon a matter ordinarily privileged, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence, we think that he has waived his right to insist, in 6 Much of this argument is based upon Epstein's mischaracterization of the contents of the emails in question. As discussed above Epstein should not have read the contents of the emails in question and should not be permitted to rely upon the alleged contents of the emails to support his argument. pretrial discovery proceedings, that the matter is privileged."). "Thus, for waiver to occur under the at issue doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense." Coates, 940 So.2d at 510. Here, malicious prosecution claim was not based upon the emails at issue here. certainly will not be using the privileged information to establish hi it against Epstein. cis The elements of a malicious prosecution claim are: - 1. the commencement of a judicial proceeding; 2) its! :4. ' usa n by the present defendant against the plaintiff; 3) its bona fide tcrmin liti r avor of the plaintiff; - 4. the absence of probable cause for the prosecuti ce; [and] 6) damages. Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So.3d 602, 604 (Fla. 4th S A 1 All of these elements, other than l SE damages and bona fide termination, require p Ss" t pstein's state of mind and knowledge at the time the original action against Edw ?sleo w nunene,ed and/or continued. Because Epstein did not have the work product in • hen suit was filed or continued, claim cannot be based upon those ma Epstein also impl the emails are relevant to claims for damages because they may contra\* ms regarding the effect of Epstein's claims on him. However, some possible rele not the standard for waiver based upon issue injection. It is well established that thC bility that the disputed documents may be relevant to or may assist the lawyers in their defense ... or may perhaps assist in the lawyers' efforts to impeach the clients, does not create a waiver of the privilege." Coates, 940 So.2d at 509 (citing Jenney, 846 So.2d at 668 ("[A]ttorneyclient privilege is not waived simply because the credibility of Jenney's statements concerning his intent could possibly be impeached by his communications with his former attorney."); Choice Restaurant Acquisition Ltd. v. Whitley, Inc., 816 So.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (discussing the accountant-client privilege and noting that "a court cannot justify finding waiver of the privilege merely because the information sought is needed by the opposing party to provide information helpful to cross examination or for the defense of a cause of action" and that "mere relevance of the information is not sufficient grounds to override this privilege' , Gold, =, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. (determining, in a legal malpractice action, that the defending law firm's firm had been negligent did not serve to override the client's atto subsequent firm); Shafnaker v. Clayton, 680 So.2d 1109, 1111 1\`s that respondents could not discover communications pe (,) though the information may have assisted responde in e defense). "S t ;Coyne v. A 1998) a subsequent rivilege with the A 1996) (concluding with other attorneys even \\ By seeking damages for intangible ele u as "anxiety" door for Epstein to obtain privileged wo into mental well-being. In other product and attorney-client pri him impeach re • his damages claim. (SYc hich he believes may offer some vague insight tein is not entitled to breach the sacrosanct work because he thinks the materials at issue here may help has not opened the ## r d. Edwar pri ege log was not inadequate and did not waive work product P in claims that waived the relevant privileges by deliberately concealm emails in question in a "159-page privilege log" which was somehow an "improper device." (Supp., p.10). There are many problems with this argument. First and foremost is the implication that filed a 159-page privilege log to conceal the documents in question. The size of the privilege log was necessitated by the overbroad request made by Epstein, who sought tens of thousands of documents. made every effort to produce all non-privileged documents and made great efforts to limit the number of documents on the privilege log in order to lessen the burden on Judge Carney. Additionally, it is unfathomable that Epstein claims that "concealed" documents which were expressly listed in a privilege log. Epstein challenges the legal sufficiency of privilege log by claiming waived the relevant privileges by not complying with Judge Crowe's August 17, 2012 rder to file a written response. In the order in question, Judge Crowe actually vacated lri ier order requiring to file an amended privilege log. In addition, Judge Croio to file a written response to Paragraph 13 of Epstein's Motion to Compe privilege log," "responsive documents withheld from producti thlt6 sis of any assertion of privilege." Paragraph 13 concerned emails between R and either. (1) the Federal Government; (2) and (3) any SlidEers. Because Epstein had already voluntarily dismissed his action against Edw ds did not produce any written response to Paragraph 13 or any emails between \ the assignment was the level of dissemination of defaming statements - defaming statements. that'S on page Ors, Page four. I refer to the statement, associating Mr. with the illegal 20 activities of Mr. Rothstein's, the results 21 of Mr. Rothstein's lawsuits as the defaming 12 statements. 21 So what they plan to do is put on an 24 expert to demonstrate that the allegation: 15 of the complaint were defaming and caused 24 damages, the defamation action. 27 There's nothing in the elements of 28 malicious prosecution that make it relevant 29 for en expert to get on the stand and talk 20 about defaming statements in the complaint. 21 In fact, to do so violates the roadsap 22 that the Supreme Court just gave us. There 23 is no better authority than Debrincat on how 24 this case should go forward. But if they're 25 going to be allowed to put an expert on to 8 talk about defaming statements, if they are 2 going to be allowed to put on the allegations of the complaint and test their 1 truth or falsity. which are protected by S litigation privilege, we then need to have 6 affirmative defenses. That sounds like 1 defamation. 8 Last point I want to point out in 9 bebrincat, Your Honor, is this. It's in the analysis, and it's the second sentence of the analysis. The law has long recognized :2 that judges, counsel, parties and witnesses :3 should be absolutely exempted from liability :4 to an action -- this is the key -- it :1 doesn't say to defamation -- to an action, :6 to be specific -- to any action for defamatory words published in the course of :8 the Judicial proceeding. \:9 So if we are exempted from liability 7:0 for the words published in the lawsuit, then we don't need these affirmative defenses, because they will then have t0 focus on probable cause for the judicial proceeding. 22 :3 :4 :3 But if they are going to be allowed to bring in allegations of the complaint, truth or 3 4 6 7 9 Otherwise, if you look affirmative defenses, Y have any. The reason we didn't raise advice in don't hire any is eel. There's not a statute o 'cations defense. We have no affirmat eases because we are defend, aalici s prosecution action. falsity, then we need these affi defenses. ?cc ask this COUrt, if this Court is al them to try the truth or :2 Isity .f the statements in the complaint, :3 be allowed to amend our pleading. THE COURT: You are not seeking t0 amend to affirmatively defend on advice of :6 counsel? MR. LINK: We are not, sir. They are all defamation affirmative defenses. THE COMO': Well, there's also the 70 constitutional affirmative defenses that you are seeking to interpose dealing with the 22 petition to file against the government or 73 something along those lines. :8 :9 21 .74 MR. LINK: Those are all defamation. 25 They are all protection of speech. It But that's what this door is Opening. That's what they want to do. And we suggest THE OMR?: I presume that falls under that same umbrella. KR. LINK: It does. Your Honor. Everything that we've asked the Court to allow us to amend is designed to protect our record, frankly, that we believe that everything in our pleading -- let me give you an example. The Court dismisses Mr. 1111111' count for abuse of process based on litigation privilege. At the end of the suit when we win, if we sued Mr. Scarola prosecution in going fe are the statements he proceedings -- for ex serial child so because the does he we bring malicloca h this care. Mr. Epstein ia a they protected this proceeding? Or privilege somehOir because us prosecution action? court tells us very clearly we sue Mr. SCarOla for his ts. It has no purpose in the cious prosecution action. to Your Honor we don't want to come back a second time. Me would like to try this case once. We would like to focus on the elements of malicious prosecution and not try a defaming.wOrds Case in front of the jury. Thank you. Your Honor. THE COOKY: Okay thank you, Mr. Link. Mho is going to be arguing on behalf of Mr. Mr. Burlington? MR. BIBILINCION: May it please the Court. I am Phillip Burlington representing Brad 14 1 have not heard anything today that 15 justifies their claim that the rights to 14 petition the government provides them an 22 affirmative defense as they allege in their 18 fifth affirmative defense. That has nothing 19 to do with defamation. Me have explained 20 why it is not a defense to a malicious 21 prosecution case. Because, as the OS 22 Supreme Court has stated very clearly, 23 baseless litigation is not protected by the 24 privilege to engage in petitioning of the 23 government under the First Amendment. t would note that even considering the 2 presentation here, there is not a single case from any jurisdiction cited by the-4 that says that any of these defenses are valid in a malicious prosecution case. Not 6 a single case. 7 They have gone so far as to cite thr 8 Noerr-Pennington cases, which are anti-trust 9 cases involving efforts to lobby the legislative and executive branches of government, and they have taken that and :2 tried to apply it to the malicious prosecution case. That makes no sense. \:4 Now, as to the other defenses, they :5 have also passed over two very critical :6 considerations which were not addressed in their motion, and have not been addressed :8 here. And T hope will not be addressed for '2 the first time in the rebuttal, since we addressed it very squarely in our response, and that is, there are three grounds to deny :2 a metier. to amend. One is where the party :3 has abused privilege. The second is where :4 the amendment would prejudice the opposing 75 party. And then the third is whether the 4 6 7 Now, in this case, the e se five affirmative defenses eight a i the befo e of this had for thi, litigation and were special setting that th Month. affirmative defenses would be fut they are legally insufficient. We pointed hour response there was no yrp1onatio by it took them eight :o Year up these affirmative is on abuse of the privilege :2 :3 :6 :8 :9 ntil the eve of trial after y Is almost completely concluded to se multiple affirmative defenses, many of which raise factual issues that would require further discovery, possibly new experts, and maybe even a counter-pleading. Those reasons in themselves are sufficient to justify denial of this motion. 20 21 >3 25 Rut, 1 have spent more time on the futility, because 1 certainly understand that Your Honor has always expressed concern that people are allowed to amend. And again, we don't think that they should based on the abuse of the privilege and based on 10 22 22 23 34 12 is And this is very clearly stated in the paragraph preceding its conclusion. This court has never held that the litigation privilege protects a litigan row the claim of malicious prosecution ther district courts have s oted as the litigation privil not act as a bet to a malicious claim. 1/ 28 1, 20 21 22 If the o eme Court was holding t et it s not bar proof of the first ale o alicious prosecution, they ve said that and said it remains in the other elements. Clearly they have been as categorical as they et What they have done is try to parse out language, again trying to woke the road's,: the prejudice to our client. Rut 1 will got back to the legal insufficiency. The argument that the Debrincat case gives a roadmap is simply wrong. Debrincat is not a roadmsp. It Is a dead end. It was the determination that the litigation privilege does not apply to a malicious prosecution case. p when it's clear this was intended to be a dead end for that privilege. 20 And they talk about it's only the initiation of the claim that subjects the, to liability. Hut even in Debrincat when it talks about the first element, it says an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff use conenced or continued. In this case. Obviously, it was continued. 21 They include the other elements, which 12 include that there was an absence of 13 probable cause for the original proceeding. 24 That means we can prove that the factual 25 allegations were false, that the legal 14 claims were invalid, as a matter of law, and 27 nothing in Debrincat precludes that. 28 It was a simple, very short decision 29 for the Florida Supreme Court. And it 20 simply said the privilege does not apply t: 21 malicious prosecution claims. 22 But even putting aside bebrincat, we 23 have never had a defamation claim. We have 24 never alleged it. And they have this string 22 cite of cases that talks about how, well -- it's called the single publication rule. Ti 2 your cause of action is based on a 3 defamatory publication, you can't avoid 4 defenses to defamation or the statute of S limitations by pleading things like 6 intentional inflection of emotional distress 2 or tortious interference with business 0 relationships, so forth and so on. 9 It has nothing to do -- not a single one of those cases had to do with malicious prosecution. The only one that comes within :2 shouting distance is Fridovich. Rut in that :3 case, the Fourth District rejected the :4 malicious prosecution case, because that '5 case arose out of family allegations that a '6 family member murdered somebody, and they were essentially fighting over the estate. They created this conspiracy to bring '9 claims to the prosecutor to prosecute that family member for murder. That family member was ultimately convicted of :2 mane laughter. '3 SO the Fourth District said that's not :4 a bona fide termination in your favor, so they eliminated the malicious prosecution. 4 Then they vent with dranmatia ?Cfits c 3' and related counts. It was a ar )4Cc) question in Fridovich -- ta . defamation. 6 Rut they have Cit no Ca e from any jurisdiction that says u can convert a malicious pro tIon case into a defamation case, en raise defenses that rir nation cases. \:6 e reliance on the deposition Gen is nothing but -- that was was an expert on damages and to reputation as a result of false Cements, which is an inherent part of a malicious prosecution case. And they have cited no cases to the contrary. \:8 THE COURT: You have cases that cite affirmatively to that proposition? \:9 20 21 22 23 25 BURLINGTON: There is a case called Mancusi out of the Florida Supreme Court that defined the elements and talked about it is designed -- in fact, Debrincat says that malicious prosecution is balanced between allowing people to bring suits and protecting the reputation of the individual. 10 But even if we go a little deeper int: these defamation claims to the defamation defenses, they are clearly invalid as a matter of law. 21 22 For example, the fifth one -- excuse me. I have already address a fifth ono. 13 14 15 16 Id The sixth one claim is a public figure. Previously, this maul factual set of for experts se a whole new keeps the need as 1, 20 21 22 Rut se makes it Crystal Clear thatt ornate attorney representing a despite their involvement In a le case, including their set in a proceeding unrelated to r civil proceeding -- is not a public Igor\*. That you cannot convert -- they are very specific -- YOU cannot convert SO that's one -- that's the nature of it. I mean, the fact that there are similar elements of damage does not convert malicious prosecution to a defamation count. And they have cited no case for that proposition. 10 11 12 23 14 15 16 29 And what they have attached to their motion to amend -- which they Claim Brad made himself into a public figure - is nothing more than infinite statements on the law fin where Brad worked that talked about some of hiS COOS. And that'• nothing more than his professional responsibility and professional relationship for purposes of getting clients. le 19 20 21 22 23 THE COURT: Resume. MR. BURLINGTON: Excuse me? THE COURT: Resume. MR. BURLINGTON: Sure. And there's nothing even -- only one of them mentions Epstein. 24 25 So they have cited no case from any jurisdiction that says that a defamation private attorney representing a client into an officer of the court to bootstrap yourself into saying he's a public official. and they also said in that case that we are not going to hold that someone who simply engages in their professional activities or has involvement in the Community is converted to a public figure. count can result in either a higher burden presumption of malice. 2 of proof or additional affirmative defenses So that case, the Hodes case. has 2 based on the nature of the individual who nothing to do with either the context of 4 was sued in the baseless litigation. this case or the cause of action that we had 5 Then their seventh affirmative defense brought. 6 just asserts generally just as a matter of And they've cited, as I've said, no 7 public concern, and therefore we have a malicious prosecution cases to support the 4 higher burden of proof. idea that any of these defenses can be 9 Again, this is rather late in the game valid. '0 to start changing, not only the factual 10 How, as to the -- I believe it's the '1 issues, but the burdens of proof. But they 21 eighth and ninth affirmative defenses, the, '2 also cite no case from any jurisdiction that 32 are not affirmative defenses all. '3 says a malicious prosecution case is altered 13 Affirmative defense Florida 4 on the basis of whether there wee a matter 14 Supreme Court has eta s whe a \$ of public concern involved. 13 defendant essentially to admit the 7 Mr. Apstein's criminal conduct into a matter 17 even assumi t •u know, I have this 8 of public concern is somewhat of a stretch. Is defense you ar mited in these matters \:6 And here, inverting that notoriety of 14 allegations of di But say -- 9 But also, in the Geste Case there was It in provin ur ate or in your damages. :0 notoriety in that criminal case. And Pert, made it very clear that the private attorney :2 representing '3 related proceedings, which had a lot of 2 a al proposition which they rely on to :4 publicity, did not convert him to either a 4 rovide the predicate for the sixth and '5 public official or a public figure. And \\ seventh affirmative defenses. But it is 20 21 fr eighth affirmative defense simply it nothing but a defamation suit. a client in proceedings and in 22 The of an affirmative defense. That IS • whether or not it was a matter of c I nothing but a statement of a legal 2 concern was not relevant. 2 proposition. It is not a defense. 3 The case that they a gl n is The last affirmative defense claims 4 the Moder case, which 1 lo se that there are known procedures that this 8 the students, no ly teaching, and was a an affirmative defense. That's a S where the parent went the a d -- the Court could put fn place that could protect 6 school board to speak o net a teacher Apstein's due process rights in the context 7 that he believe a not properly preparing Of the punitive damages Claims. lhat'S not 9 harms.' Is am. il constitutional challenge in the proceedings o he a a public forum. It was an 20 Of this Court. While I'm not Saying they h, not a judicial branch. 21 Can't raise Constitutional challenges, it IS 2 d all hat the Florida Supreme Court held 12 not an affirmative defense. :5 public forum -- there was a qualified 15 the, context of punitive damages that has :6 privilege, and the malice would not be 14 deprived Mr. Epstein of any due process 7 presumed from the defamatory statements. 27 rights. that context -- because it was a 13 I would add they haven't specified a ter of public concern in the appropriate 24 single thing that has happened thus far in s Now, again, that was a defamation suit. 28 And I gave a brief summary in our 9 It was nothing about malicious prosecution. 19 response to all the protections that have '0 But as Justice Scalia noted In his 20 been established in the case law, in the 72 malicious prosecution has the qualified 22 And until and unless they come to ye. 22 privilege built into it, because we have to 23 with a colorable argument that those 24 prove not only a lack of probable cause, but 24 procedures are inadequate, there's nothin2 25 we have to prove malice, and we do not get a 23 for you to do in response to that gerar c 2: concurring opinion in the )(aline ease, 21 statutes, for protecting due process right- . 2 3 e assertion that Mr. Epstein could never have his due process rights protected in the context of the punitive damages award. But what is clear is it's not an affirmative 1 doesn't apply here. THE COURT: lot me ask you to explain for se, if you will, the issue of futility. Because usually, because of Florida's policy S defense at all. on liberality of amendments even at trial -- 2 say that the litigation privilege only the pleadings -- the amendment is typically 8 applies to one element of the malicious allowed. And then the affirmative defenses 9 prosecution claim, I submit, is facially are attacked, traditionally, by a motion to 6 So, trying to parse out Debrincat - cases after trial that allows for amending 'o wrong in light of the complaint. And if lc strike. • they believe that Debrincat, which concludes 21 Mere your arguments on behalf of you. 2 by saying unequivocally that the litigation 22 client are that these are a a a '3 privilege does not apply to malicious 23 essentially futile in th that t 6 prosecution cases, they had an obligation 24 analogize it with a c f act n brooch' \$ because they were a tag-along case. 23 by a plaintiff in a gi case where the 2 Issuing Debrincat, issued an order in our 22 attempting type of cause of 8 case saying that Epstein should show cause is action t t wake no legal sense, or it is \:6 And the Florida Supreme Court, after 26 plaintiff is al or ype of -- 9 why Debrincat does not control. And in It barred by e sting precedent s0 as CO :0 response, Epstein conceded that it did 20 r amendments futile. Control. 21 old suspect that that tame analogy \:2 There IS no way to parse out anything 22 COY gply here, albeit, thiS IS the first :3 In Debrincat which would create entirely new 2 of rt, at least as to these affirmative :4 law in Florida about parsing out elements of 4 tense,, that have been made. :5 malicious prosecution for either purposes of But are you suggesting that under no • forcing the plaintiff into a post ?f 2 2 having a defamation claim or o ta 2 that it would be either amendable or that e claim and saying, ■ **we on 1 and the laws that have constituted these** reading of law and the facts that apply here 3 specific elements of a mall us o lion any potential amendment based on these facts **5 defenses to these. proposed affirmative defenses would be** **6 The falsity of the nts In th- futile? I complaint are e ly different from a NA. BURLINOION: You are correct that 8 publication, bec is the act of 9 normally when affirmative defenses are o Clie t fend, litigate, expend funds. 20 the means of challenging their legal** **) trigger q the lu Ial mechanism forcing my il initially asserted in a timely fashion, that tel y of those statements goes to 11 sufficiency is a motion to strike.** **2 ck of •robable cause. It goes to malice. 22 When a motion to amend is presented -- 3 is an element that we can prove 23 especially this late in the game -- it would sed harm and we should get compensatory 24 be a waste of judicial resources for you to :5 damages. 15 allow the amendment knowing that. as a** **:6 Again, they cited no case. They relied 16 natter of law, those defenses are invalid. 2 solely on Debrincat, and it is an extremely 17 And there are cases -- I'm not sure :s thinMIupon which to entirely change the 28 they're the ones cited in our response -- '1 on it being untimely with no explanation. 21 futile.** **:9 law of malicious prosecution. And I believe 29 but I have cited cases on futility where, if )0 that Your Honor should deny the motion based 20 they're legally invalid, they're necessarily** **22 None of these cases are new. Debrincat 22 And to go through the motion of 25 All the others are established law. It just 23 legal sufficiency is addressed in these** **23 is the only one that's within the last few 23 allowing them to amend, requiring us to move ze years. nut they had time to raise that. 24 to strike, allowing them to respond when the** 1 memos -- 2 They cited case law in their\ 3 affirmative defenses, themselves, trying to\ 4 justify them. So the futility is\ 5 different -- not different, but the need to\ 6 do a motion to strike is different when the\ 7 amendment is made. 8 When you come to the court and seek it\ 9 to exercise its discretion to allow an\ 10 amendment, if it is legally invalid there's\ 11 no reason for the court to allow it, because\ 12 it would be futile. And that's one of three\ 13 ways of attacking the motion to amend, as\ 14 discussed in all the case law. 15 Otherwise, to say it would be futile, I\ 16 guess, we would have to get into the factual\ 17 analysis of where the facts don't support\ 18 it. But there isn't much difference between\ 19 saying the facts don't support it and this\ 20 doesn't apply as a matter of law to this\ 21 cause of action. 22 So I believe you are fully authorized\ 23 to look at the merits of these claims, which\ 24 have been argued in the motion and the\ 25 response. And they've certainly had an 1 opportunity today to argue what they thought\ 2 was the legal validity. 3 So to simply put that off and have\ 4 another hearing on it when the question here\ 5 is, Do you allow [REDACTED] dents, which I believe\ 6 are clearly not valid to a malicious\ 7 prosecution cause of action. So I believe\ 8 you are authorized to do it on that basis as\ 9 well. 10 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Burlington.\ 11 I appreciate your written and oral\ 12 presentation, as well, Mr. Link. 13 MR. SCAROLA: May I add just a little\ 14 bit to that? 15 THE COURT: I will give you a couple\ 16 minutes. 17 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, sir. 18 THE COURT: After Mr. Scarola,\ 19 Ms. Rockenbach, if you want to add something\ 20 you are free to do so as well. 21 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that it\ 23 will take a couple minutes. 24 It was one aspect -- 25 THE COURT: Less than that? 1 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 2 There was one aspect of Mr. Link's\ 3 argument that I found extremely confusing.\ 4 And maybe it's just some -- 5 MR. LINK: Your Honor, you mind if I\ 6 move so I can -- 7 THE COURT: Feel free. 8 MR. SCAROLA: -- some inability on my\ 9 part to comprehend the argument. But he\ 10 told us repeatedly that [REDACTED] seeks to\ 11 prove the falsity of the allegations of the\ 12 complaint instead of proving there was no\ 13 probable cause to file the complaint. I\ 14 think he repeated that statement at least\ 15 three times. And quite frankly, I have no\ 16 idea what that means. 17 In order to prove there was no probable\ 18 cause to file the complaint, we must look at\ 19 the factual allegations in the complaint and\ 20 we must demonstrate that there was no\ 21 probable cause to file those specific\ 22 factual allegations. That is, we must prove\ 23 the factual allegations were false, and we\ 24 must prove that there was no reason to\ 25 believe that they were true. This wasn't a 1 good faith mistake. 2 So the issues are identical. And what\ 3 they were attempting to do by way of this\ 4 motion to amend is to get right back to\ 5 where they were arguing last week, and that\ 6 is, they don't want to ever have to defend\ 7 against the claim that [REDACTED] [REDACTED]\ 8 fabricated false charges against Jeffrey\ 9 Epstein. They don't want to focus on that\ 10 at all. And this is one more means by which\ 11 to attempt to reargue that same position. 12 THE COURT: Or fabricated false claims\ 13 against Jeffrey [REDACTED] (sic) or -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: Jeffrey Epstein. 15 THE COURT: Fabricated false -- 16 MR. SCAROLA: [REDACTED] fabricated false\ 17 claims against Epstein. 18 THE COURT: Correct. 19 MR. SCAROLA: We will help each other\ 20 out with that. 21 THE COURT: Or vice versa for that\ 22 matter, that Epstein fabricated false claims\ 23 against [REDACTED], meaning, I am still not\ 24 sure where the defendant in the malicious\ 25 prosecution claim, Mr. Epstein, stands as to that issue, as to whether or not he's I as it relates to a traditional defamation claim, perhaps. 2 conceding or not conceding. 3 4 1 6 2 MR. SCABOLA: That has been scrupulously avoided by the other side, Your Honor. They don't want to face that issue or even acknowledge it exists. I agree with Your Honor. a THE COURT: shank you, Mr. Scarolz 9 Mr. Link, couple things that I you/ t '0 like you to focus on. First is that -- I 10 argument of Mr. Burlington boiling it dam, '1 appreciate your bringing it to my attention, 21 to its very essence is. you can't fit a 's Mr. ' and Mr. Rothstein's names have 24 not a defametio cla '7 been linked, presumably as a result of 1/ I nett no plan and will not Some of these affirmative defenses, quite frankly, in handling defamation claims on numerous occasions in the past. I have never seen before. I never try to stifle creativity. But at the same time, we have to take into account, not only judicial resources, but what -- the essential '2 and I have heard this before -- about the 12 square peg into a round hole. And that is, '; punitive expert's testimony on behalf of 22 that the bulk of these a ve defenses, \*4 Mr. . that his research has revealed la because they deal wit at'e one, are '1 whatever number of instances whereby 15 not pertinent. Two a if they were, ft.- to Mr. Rpsteln's conduct. se try a def scion aim. And alsO, again, '2 MR. LINK: Yes, Your Nonor. It even if t C Id be conceivably construed 20 SHE COUR,: I haven't read it very 20 a ation claims, they don't pan legal Closely. At this point I don't know how 21 22 much of that testimony is going to get In. 22 e of them, such as the affirstativrt 'I But irrespective of that, what 2 de nee regarding the petitioning of the :4 Mr. Burlington has emphasised and what the 4 evernsent, has, in my view, absolutely no \:5 Court clearly is under the impression as to application to this case. because If it did. • its utilisation, is not to prove I it would have application to any lawsuit 2 other element of the malicious ro 2 just about that I could conceive of that 2 claim except for damages. a 5 6 7 For example, an of ti nee to that aspect of the chi could entially be that Mr. fel itigate his damages by tart f his own seal in seeking 2 for his resents on of the alleged 5 at the time of th0e0 two cases. Hoerr and 0 victi the plaintiffs in those cases 20 Pennington, where there were issues of would be brought by any person, by any plaintiff, by any counter-plaintiff. The application is completely an opposite to what we're doing here. This is not redressable by virtue of petition to a publicity for hi eentation of Mr. -- 0 government, as are and as were, particularly Bps n. and therefore, Cause such 21 anti-trust violations and the testing of '2 damages by exercising that teal. 12 whether or not anti-trust laws were In ft.., se as to the damage claim, because just 14 obvious because of the Sherman Act -- the '7 similar to the questions I had of you last 27 against anti-trust violations. So there was :s week when I asked what were Mr. Rpstein'S 28 that nexus that was clearly prevalent there. - 2 damages as a result of his filing of the 29 So I really don't need further argument t2 at may constitute an affirmative 22 being violated. And the government's -- :5 like a simple negligence action is 25 government's obviously because of the :6 concerned, damages are a necessary element, 26 Sherman Act -- interest in protecting 20 initial suit against Rothstein, and 20 as to the fifth affirmative defense. 21 L.M., as related to the factoring of those 21 The sixth affirmative defense deals 22 cases. 22 with the limited public figure. Be haven't 22 So, there's a distinction of importance 22 really talked about that from your 74 that I can see here as it pertains to the 2a standpoint -- your position as to that in 25 affirmative defenses that have been asserted 25 light of the Gertz decision. KR. LINK: Yes. We believe that I. 2 defamatory statements are going to be the 3 basis for liability and for damages so that we're moving in absolute litigation 5 privilege from allegations in the complaint, 6 then the fact that Mr. is a quasi-7 public figure that puts himself out there, 8 that advertises, that speaks about these 9 issues, that issues press releases, talked to the press -- should come in as an affirmative defense in this case. \:2 THE COURT: Now do you get around Gertz :3 essentially Saying precisely the opposite, :a that a lawyer -- even where a lawyer '5 represents a high-profile client? Were :6 these aren't high-profile clients. canon-sense thinking although :8 really not a pert of the decision here is '9 that outside of South Florida, and had :0 Mr. Rothstein not Committed the heinOUS crimes that he's been convicted for in 22 serving a sentence somewhere in the 23 neighborhood of 50 years, would have been off the radar. There would have been 25 no real issues, other than his connection 3 with Mr. Epstein. Some may argue that Mr. to more of a public figure the r. under the analysis you 6 Wk. LINK: Ns may very we 1 , You, Honor. 7 1 :0 THE COURT: here. I don't meaning the on, and the fact that the to in GOrtt was in fact high-profile Client and there ded immunity -- which wouldn't have ion here whatsoever -- I don't see basic fundaments' issue being answered or even arguable. that's not the issue t2, with the plain \:6 .7 MR. LINK: If I can take one shot at it, Your Honor. \:8 :9 20 71 22 23 THE couRT: Sure. LINK: I think the difference is the fact that you represent a high-profile client does not make you a quasi-public figure. It's the steps and actions that you take as a result of that. 21 25 So, the fact that the three plaintiffs that Mr. represented were not high-profile folks does not mean that he didn't voluntarily put himself out there end create an image and a reputation for hi fffff and put himself out there in a public way. There are easy examples. I represent high-profile client, Mr. Epstein. After the hearing, the press case up, I didn't talk to the press. I didn't put myself out there. Other lawyers will do that. They will give 20 press rel 11 Mr. 22 13 34 went even beyond that. Me used these cases to promote that gees beyond simply client. elf in a way ting a 15 to 19 MA. SC/a:GILA: You own, excuse me. Thera is no set rd a en to support that assertion 1 Abs. utely none. la It THE appreciate that. Thank. YOU. Mr. 20 may proceed. 2i LINK: SO there is a distinction. 22 epresenting a high-profile client 2 not make you a quasi-public figure. doing things that put yourself out there -- Contacting the press. giving 2 interviews, giving speeches, making yourself -- putting yourself out there sr specialist in this particular area and seeking press and accolades does -- that'; the distinction. 10 11 12 So the fact that I'm representing Kr. Epstein, who may be a more well-known figure, doesn't wean I have done anything to assert syself into the public view. That's the distinction I would draw, Your Honor. ?NH COURT: Anything else you would like to Speak to? 23 24 15 15 MR. LINK: Yes, if I can. I lust want to touch on a couple points that Mr. Burlington made and a point Kr. Scarola made. 27 la 29 20 21 22 23 24 23 Here is the key to this and these affirmative defenses. And Your Honor asked a great question. You asked Mr. Burlington if any cases -- any of the malicious prosecution cases say that you can take a false statement -- allegedly a false statement from a complaint -- and use that to demonstrate lack of probable cause or damages. And he pointed to the Kancusi VISO. 2 Your Honor. we looked at this case 1.1,t 3 time that we were here. It's a case that 4 Your Honor pointed out, I believe, that 1 talks about the mixed question of fact of 6 law and the probable cause. 7 There's no discussion of damages other 8 than punitive damages in the case. It sets 9 forth the standards that your court told us about and recognised, which is, if there's no dispute as to the facts that were relied on in waking the decision to bring a '1 lawsuit, then it's up to you. And I said Your HOnOr may decide enough or not enough. \*\$ It's your call. It's not the jury's :6 decision. That's what Mancusi says. There is not a case that we have :8 seen -- endue looked a0 about 65 67 '1 cases. Florida eases that discussed that 20 you can use an allegation to the complaint to either show leek Of probable cause, based 22 on the truth or falsity, or use it to 21 establish damages. And here is why. 24 Xr. Burlington doesn't think that the 25 Supreme Court case answers the question. but I think it does. And here is wha focus the Court on. It is not Yo 1 simply the first element of 4 prosecution element tha us o ivil 5 judicial proceeding. is is r the 6 Supreme Court Case. 1 Rvery eler If you look -- an 8 original civil I i proceeding -- it 2 doesn't a count. IlegatIOn. Complaint. '0 It t ks the big picture. Why? Because la it is filed, that's the :2 he filing of the lawsuit, not what :3 in it. That's protected by the gation privilege. The present defendant was the legal :6 cause of the original proceeding. Second element uses the term original proceeding. :s Third element: determination of the original :9 proceeding. 20 THE CORRY: You think that the 21 terminology, an original criminal or civil 72 judicial proceeding against the present 23 plaintiff was commenced or continued,' seems 74 to bring in, at least arguably, more than 25 just the initial complaint? MA. LINK: Yes. But the 'continued' has been defined very carefully. Mere is what the court said. The court says that continued means this: One, if I'm a new lawyer coming in. I don't have a defense if there was not probable cause. If I come in. don't do my homework and I continue with the proceeding, that's one aspect. 10 The second aspect is, I may have 11 probable cause when I start, but if during 32 13 34 15 24 17 It 20 the course of the lawsuit s ping comes to my attention that makes conclude that what I thought was tr I have to stop, Your manor. get to keep going. But it as n. in o do with the allegations mint, what I say during m depot{ on, what you say during the case, t * other lawyer say during 21 22 if you look at every one Of these -- it's really important to look at 2\\4 Alice. Vs\* of the words the original Y One of these elements, except for proceeding. AC c 10 11 12 -- and look at damaged, 406.12, Your Honor, On malicious prosecution, you won't see anything in there about the publication of a false statement or damage Caused by a false statement. 13 14 15 14 Contrast that with defamation, which it Specifically says if you (Ind that there was false statement, it's a whole different standard for damages. 37 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 THE COURT: Again, we are going to need get to that bridge when we come to it. Rut the malicious prosecution damages state, quote. If you find for defendant, you will not consider the matter of damages. If you find for the plaintiff, you should award the plaintiff an amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows ',out.: fairly and adequately compensate him for Six, the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the original proceeding. Again, that's the filing of the complaint. And you look at Florida's jury instructions -- Mr. Sterols, I don't have them, but they are the standard jury instructions. 2 \] such loss, injury, damage as the greater weight of the evidence shows was caused by the institution -- and then it also 4 parenthetically states -- continuation ." I presentation, feel free to do s0. 5 the proceeding complained of. I want to get into repetition. So if there's anything you want to say to rebut Mr. Burlington's argument or his written 6 7 8 9 YR. LINK: So it depends on the focus. Mr. Scarola has not said -- t don't think - he has always said we're focused on the initial filing. There's not probable cause . '0 for the initial filing. That's what he has in Court tells us that there is still a 'I told us. He hes not said there was probable II litigation privilege afforded to every '3 the road Mr. Epstein learned something and 11 between when you make ision to :4 he should have stopped then. 14 institute. I0. LINK: As I have handed the court the KanCUS1 CaSe, YOUr Honor -- which does not say anything about statements or allegations in the complaint or damage, other than punitive damages -- the Supreme :2 cause at the beginning, Your Honor, but down 12 litigant. The narrow exr on ha, to do '5 So based on exactly what you read, it IS Kr. Scarola aai t he sees ther ns :6 focuses on, was caused by the institution of IS the same thi a very different. '7 it, the filing of lt. 11 One draws i you file the lawsuit. e THE COUR,: Continuation is one of the 14 And wha a on t is side of the line and '1 words that's utilised right there In bold, it before t ow it is filed is what is in e black print. 20 nd when you make the decision. And MR. LINK: If he was arguing that it 21 not protected. :3 not. He's not, I don't believe -- unless 2 a the truth and falsity of those \:2 was continuation to cause damages. Re's 22 t what you plead in the complaint, :4 he's changed his mind. I allegations is absolutely protected. And :5 THE COM': Is that true? that's what the Supreme Court just told us. - • MR. SCA ROLA: No, Your Honor Is 1 Thank you, Your Honor. 7 not true. Me contend there wa no 2 imS COURT: All right. Thank you, : 4 5 6 7 cause to Initiate this pr in was no probable cause to co e proceeding. The initi ion a ontinuation of the proceeding cause to 1111111: both ee no probable cause ever 8 existed. So it Initiated and b affirmative defense is concerned, that the Mr. Link. The Court is prepared to rule. I am going to go through It one step at a time and proceed through the fifth through the ninth affirmative defenses. The Court findS, as far as the fifth 9 continu n the a once of probable cause. il pleading made here has) no relationship n there vas never probable cause. 24 neither Pennington nor Hoerr, N-0-F.-R-R. :5 Hut the continuation isn't I filed it 15 have any application t0 this claim any v0r.• '0 K: Your Honor, that only sakes 20 whatsoever to the ease at bar. This is rt.:, • a If think what stout Mr. Scarola 21 a forum Of petitioning government for :2 at SS •, if it's not probable Cathie when I 12 redress. The Court has stated. and in :3 t and I continue with the lawsuit. 13 agreement with ' position• that \:6 and it should have been eliminated that day. 14 than it would have to any generic claim :7 The second day after the lawsuit it's 17 brought by any plaintiff. \:a already been continued. 28 This is not an anti-trust case. ThI. 20 to wrap up. We had planned on 40 minutes. 20 involvement is either directly or indirectly 23 MR. LINK: I appreciate that. 23 quote. forum of petitioning government for \:9 THE coCitr: I will give you two minutes 19 is not a case where the government 7: Me are now going on 55. hut again, I want 21 at issue as it relates to the affirmative :2 to give both aides the opportunity -- 22 defense generally claiming that this is a. 74 THE COVET: I have read the materials 24 redress, end quote. It is airply 25 and t have heard the arguments. I don't 25 inapplicable. Any amendment along those grounds will be futile. 2 As far as the sixth affirmative defense, the Court finds that. as a matter • of law that the OM: case speaks to this issue broadly and specifically, and does not 6 place Mr. in the position of a 7 general or limited-purpose public figure. • Nonce, any affirmative defenses that re:, 9 upon that theory are, again, completely. entirely inapplicable to the matters that • are addressed in this case. \:2 The seventh affirmative defense fails 1, because of the same reason. Additionally. the suggestion that, in accordance with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the '6 United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, .8 may not recover presumed or punitive '1 damages without clear and convincing 7o evidence that Rpetein knew of the falsity of the claims that he made against were :2 in reckless disregard of the falsity of ll these claims would reconstitute argument and 74 a denial, as opposed to a confession and 25 avoidance as required by Florida law so as 10 11 12 13 14 15 26 17 But certainly the Court understands - and was under the impression even before reading the brief by Mr. Burlington -- that the claims here were one of damage: sr i t relates to this -- allegedly se statements or statements and Rothstein together attributable to Mr. Mp n, which are brought before y could constitute IS 11 20 21 22 So s no applicability to defematio It generic, general wanner in defense IS phrased would not pass er as well, and any attempt to uld be futile in this Court's view use of the distinction legally between elation and malicious prosecution. 2A14\\ As far as the ninth affirmative defense haven't read in detail the proposed expert's report or analysis or have seen his deposition transcript -- but the Court will certainly be amenable to motions that may limit that testimony so that we do not blur the fine line between what may be construed as defamation and malicious prosecution. 1 4 1 6 Again, it primarily relieg on which as I found earlier, 1 directly to the positlo Mr. RbStein. And the all know, is a United S on, as we preme Court decision found 18 US 322, 1974. \:6 :8 :9 20 Ii A plaintiff may not avoid defenses that apply to defamation actions by characterizing them as torts which are not subject to those restrictions, as the Court pointed out in agreeing with the position taken by, that is, that that is not a defamation claim. .22 73 >5 This will not be tried as a defamation claim. And any issues as to the utilization of Mr. ' name in print linking to Mr. Rothstein and presumably -- again. I to constitute a valid affirmative Ism. O The eighth ive defense SpectfI y add, es defenses to a der ti trim. It state'', quote. cl are nothing more than n claims which are barred by applicable to defamation claims as forth in the defenses above. 10 11 It would be similar to saying words to the \*fleet that the roles of evidence shall 22 apply to this case. That is, that there', 23 an application of the Fifth and Fourteenth 24 Amendments of the ()tilted States Constitution 15 and Article I. Section 9 of the Florida 26 Constitution guaranteeing due. process. is concerned, again, in agreement with the position taken by, I find that the built-in remedies that are already established in Florida law will provide any safeguards that are sought by Mr. ipstein as it relates to the punitive damages. And merely a recitation of the law does not constitute confeSSi0n or avoidance as far de the Court is concerned. 17 In any case where punitive damages or, is brought, those built-in due process laws - is whether decisional or statutory, 20 constitutional or otherwise -- are all built 71 into the already existing Florida law. And zz the ninth affirmative defense is 23 superfluous, and it would be no reason to 24 allow the amendment. It's simply a 25 statement of the law and not a confession of avoidance. 1 that. And I want to present the Court with 2 So the Court finds, thereafter, th-- packets that we have presented to opposing 3 each of the affirmative defenses would counsel. 5 defenses would not be subject to amendment it's only thick because we have provided 6 because of futility. The Court has Your Honor with the backup information. 7 add d each of these affirmative defenses In this motion, there are specific 9 in requisite detail finding that they are questions and answers, so that Your Honor 9 either in opposite, that they are contrary can very quickly take a look at the '1 to try to amend, particularly where I 31 assertions of the Fifth Amendment in '2 referenced the Gertz decision as well as the 12 response to those questions. '3 anti-trust cases that were found to be 33 4 coepletely and entirely in opposite to the 34 respond? '2 claims made here. 15 THE COURT: Sure. 4 constitute -- the improper affirmative And while the package itself is Chic,. 'o to established law and thus would be futile lo questions that we propose to address and the \:6 This is not a defamation Calle. ft will 34 MS. PACKR Siesta to a represented in open Court by I'll-' ta Yeaterda aftern n. And I am happy to 9 counsel that any issues regarding the links It review th nd 0 over them and present 22 the Court has not been asked at this 22 Of ring. :. juncture to liwit any such testimony, but Is amendable Co taking up any motions In that '5 regard and will treat Cline et such time. not be treated as such. It has been 1/ Mr. Scarol he filed those 20 between Rothstein and are going to 20 a to the Court perhaps this afternoon be used solely for damages purposes. And 21 y when we have the Continuation of > 2 4 But having received them yesterday and not Prepared the, :t::noon r g new, would suggest that perhaps the • Again, the ninth affirmative se is 1 better place to pick back up on the pending 2 simply a recitation of law the is 2 motions is precisely where we left off on 3 built in and well-known and en d by November 29th, which was Exhibit 9 in 4 the parties la not a co to Mr. Exhibit list. 2 avoidance, thus making ea fu i e in terms ONE COURT: i am certainly wore 6 of attempting to amend. prepared as well to go through that. I 2 I would as r en order confirming the would like to get a chance t0 read it. 2 side. 8 Court's ruling, s from the 4 As you know, I do the beet I can t0 try to read everything that theme in and o needs a break? 10 familiarize myself with the context. So I t 21 going t0 sustain Ma. Rockenbach's suggestion and objection to going forward 2 LA: WO are reedy to proceed, •r, if the Court Is ready 12 •• 3 .ur Honor, we had started off last 23 with this particular issue at this time. 5 Fifth Amendment. Your Honor had asked us 15 issues. I am also prepared to discuss. 4 a that we would wish to place before the jury. 28 automatic stay issue. :9 Me volunteered that we would identify the 29 So if there's any reason that k dealing with issues with respect to the 24 Let's g0 beck to the evidentiary 6 to -- or we had actually volunteered to 24 wall -- and I don't know whether it's still 7 specifically identify the limited questions 27 on the table -- I presume it is -- it's the 20 limited questions that we wanted place 20 Mr. Burlington needs to be here -- because I 21 before the jury. 21 believe there's been some request that one 22 we should be focusing only on the civil 23 Mr. Burlington -- had to leave, which is why 74 claims against the three plaintiffs 24 they wanted to speak about this affirmative 22 In light of Your Honor's statement that 22 of the attorneys -- I presume to be 25 represented by Mr. IIIIIII, we have done 25 defense issue and the denial of Epstein's 2 3 4 i request to amend his answer. MR. SCAR0LA: Mr. Burlington, Your Honor, does not need to be here for the automatic stay issue. We wanted, for purposes of conserving his time, to be able 6 to address the one matter that he would be today, and we have done that. 8 He may or may not be able to stay any reluctantly, taking significant amount of 9 longer, but he is not required to be here time away from their businesses, jobs, '2 exhibit list, I had proposed to opposing 12 front end what may not need be done 3 counsel, and 2 think I managed -- I think 1 33 during trial. :4 referenced this with the Court also during 34 So I'm comfortab h go through '5 the hearing -- that I am prepared to agree 15 the exhibits, because may be some * 8 that I will not reference any of those fe apparent -- et east Ow vantage 8 identifies as a problem in opening 38 should no be admitted or not admitted. '2 statement. And I won't -- I won't reference It And p ted Out -- en0 you are :0 them with a witness unless and until Your 20 r-Scar0la, in your global :3 To go through every listed exhibit and 2 I gated on november 29th, that the :4 obtain from Your Honor a ruling that 4 ppellate courts recognise what they term remain law here in Florida -- but that's why the overwhelming cases on the Gaubert issue. speak to actually disallowing Deubert motions, for example, from being heard during the trial for the very purpose that just cited. And that is, that these folks. are coming in as volunteers, often '0 for the other matters. 20 families to be here with us, should not have '1 With regard to going through the 31 their time wasted if we can get done on the specific exhibits that the defense 1/ point -- re n Ty s exhibits should or Honor has made a determination that it is 21 on, that because the law, more :2 appropriate for US to do so. 22 r than in the past, haS. 441 I earlier 25 obviously is not going to de any more than the fluid nature of motions in liwine. which . • what I am prepared to concede to ?CcitiSir' 1 : voluntarily, respectfully does t 2 when we talk about exhibits. A through this process, e t Your and should have the opportunity that if a 7 the evidence is Bred, we will make a decision, change its mind, Or confirm the 8 determination as her a predicate 6 decision made pretrial. 2 \*Silta it i r not. So I'm willing il But T disagree that it is a waste Or '6 THE COURT: Well, couple things, and 14 through what we can go through. '7 that is this. We are always mindful -- and 67 We will do it in a little more of an '9 attorneys as well -- I know any good 19 there's something that really does need 73 efficient manner. That's why the 23 we don't waste too much time. 74 overwhelming federal cage law -- because 24 But I think we can go through those is essentially whet we're dealing with her- 3 sense to me. I don't know w re ing The Court will have the opportunity -- S Honor could do would to say will give contested exhibit comes to fruition during 6 a preliminary indicatio such time as the trial, to be able to either augment its '0 to th 20 time because a lot of the arguments can be In • are absolutely wasting our 11 made now. I Can digest that\* arguments. I \*2 o through the large number of 12 won't forget, and I won't forget the context 3 s that you've identified for purposes 23 of what those arguments are in relation to tting to exactly the point where I am 24 the exhibits. So 1 would like to proceed. :5 willing to move voluntarily. 15 as recommended by Epstein's counsel, to go :s I am speaking about now trial judges -- but 28 expeditious fashion, and that is, if I find 20 attorney, such as all who are sitting in 20 absolutely, without question, context for me 7: this room, are certainly well f 21 to make that decision, then I will indicate 72 ensuring that the jury's time is spent in en 22 to you that rather quickly in that regard so 25 Daubert -- we don't know if it's going to 26 with some comfort to know at least what the 1 Court is thinking from that standpoint,\ 2 perhaps ruling at this point, with the\ 3 caveat that, consistent with motions in\ 4 limine and the recognition by the appellate\ 5 courts -- much to my delight -- that there\ 6 are often situations where situations will\ 7 change and context is introduced to cause\ 8 the Court to, perhaps, vary its decision in\ 9 some regard. But that is afforded to me\ 10 once trial is underway. 11 MR. LINK: Your Honor, before we start,\ 12 can I take you up on your three-minute break\ 13 opportunity, please? 14 THE COURT: Sure. Not a problem. Take\ 15 a few minutes. Come on back in about five\ 16 minutes, please. 17 (A recess was had 11:16 a.m. - 11:24 a.m.) 18 MR. SCAROLA: May I make a procedural\ 19 inquiry, Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 MR. SCAROLA: I assume that we are\ 22 starting on page 23 of Jeffrey Epstein's\ 23 revised omnibus motion in limine. Is that\ 24 correct? 25 THE COURT: That's what I am 1 understanding. 2 Ms. Rockenbach? 3 MR. SCAROLA: That's where we left off. 4 MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes. The exhibit\ 5 section, which should be letter B. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Well, the specific\ 7 exhibits that you are objecting to are\ 8 identified in this motion, correct? 9 MS. ROCKENBACH: Actually, we\ 10 stopped -- we left off at Mr. [REDACTED]\ 11 exhibit list and we are on number nine. 12 The revised omnibus motion in limine\ 13 identified examples of the objections that\ 14 we had. And we have listed and filed our\ 15 objections to the exhibit list. 16 THE COURT: Where is the list of\ 17 exhibits? 18 MR. SCAROLA: If you have an extra\ 19 copy, I need one also, please. I gave mine\ 20 to Sonja at the end of the last hearing.\ 21 And I was assuming we were going to be\ 22 basing this discussion on the motion. 23 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I\ 24 approach? I have a copy for Mr. Scarola.\ 25 It is Mr. Edward's amended exhibit list that 1 we were reviewing. 2 THE COURT: I actually have it.\ 3 Thanks. 4 MS. ROCKENBACH: You do. Okay. 5 Our objections were filed November 15.\ 6 That's obviously a separate document. 7 THE COURT: That, I will take. 8 MR. LINK: Your Honor, they are listed\ 9 in the motion starting on page three. 10 THE COURT: I thought those were just\ 11 exemplars. 12 MR. LINK: In the omnibus motion in\ 13 limine, it actually lists, I think, every\ 14 single one of the exhibits. They are\ 15 identified in here. So they are in two\ 16 places. 17 THE COURT: Page three of the revised\ 18 omnibus motion in limine? 19 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, it's the\ 20 original omnibus -- 21 THE COURT: Is that part of the -- 22 MR. SCAROLA: If we are working with\ 23 the witness list -- I mean with the exhibit\ 24 list, we will just work with the exhibit\ 25 list. 1 THE COURT: Let's do that. 2 MR. LINK: That works for us, Your\ 3 Honor. 4 THE COURT: Thanks. 5 MR. SCAROLA: So I assume we are going\ 6 to take these one at a time? 7 THE COURT: Yeah. 8 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, the next\ 9 one that we were on was number nine,\ 10 Mr. Epstein's flight logs -- if I may\ 11 approach, I would like to give Your Honor\ 12 what was provided to my office from\ 13 Mr. Scarola. And it is a sampling, because\ 14 I think there were over 200 pages for this\ 15 particular exhibit. 16 We've objected on the basis of\ 17 relevance, of 90.403, judicial value. And\ 18 these are flight logs of my client's planes.\ 19 They have no relevance to what is being\ 20 tried in this case, which is malicious\ 21 prosecution. 22 Mr. [REDACTED] testified that he knew that\ 23 his clients were not on my client's plane,\ 24 so the flight logs are completely\ 25 irrelevant. THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Scar0la. 2 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Your Honor, one of 3 the alleged bases for Jeffrey Epstein having 4 concluded that was a knowing participant in the Rothstein Ponzi scheme is 6 that the scope of the discovery that 7 was seeking once he became a member of the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler firs 9 expanded to include matters that he waa not previously focusing on and which had no reasonable bards to lead to the discovery of :2 admissible evidence. \:3 So he alleged that the abusive discovery that engaged in '5 gave him reason to believe that he was only :6 doing those things because he was knowingly supporting the Ponta scheme. So obviously has an '9 opportunity to explain what he did and why to he did it. Yes, I was seeking discovery with regard to the airplane flight logs and :2 who was On the airplane. And the reason why :3 I did that was because, even though my 01,01 :4 clients were not transported on the plane, 25 know that Other young woven were transported 3 4 6 on the plane for purposes of pros and sexual abuse. And I can p through the flight loge the occupants on the tarots children who were Dein Jeffrey Epstein. 7 Part of wh federal claim is interne kes this is a viable restate and Cation or children for pu prostitution. el law, specifically Pectoral \:6 :8 -- excuse me 415.5(g) -- and I ed this in an earlier argument to Court -- expressly allows the introduction into evidence in any case involving a sexual offense against a child, the commission of any other sexual offense against a child. \:9 70 71 72 25 So, I was seeking evidence to prove a pattern of abuse of children including their transportation for purposes of prostitution. And I was doing that through flight loge that identified these children, flight logs that identified other witnesses, taking the depositions of pilots. And so all of this 10 That's what he alleges. In tact. portions of the deposition of have already been identified by thr defense as they're intending to introduce this in evidence before the jury. 11 12 13 24 15 111 13 I have sore of those excerpts, if you Your Manor needs to take a 1 at them. They are offing that evi th regard t these setters as part tt for the lack of probable emu- to conduct this y he assertion that this w discovery process. It 20 21 How, they alleged in their complaint, specific allegations are in the complaint. Those are false a. 22 COORS: Show me those allegation: 2 CT you are suggesting. is information than rebuts the assertion by Jeffrey Epstein that this was an abusive discovery effort that supported toy conclusion that was a knowing participant in the Pons' scheme. MR. 9CARR:A: pros the complaint. Your Honor. or from the deposition testimony? 10 11 MR. SCAROLA: It's a little bit difficult for Your Honor to see on these copies what the defense has designated. but on page 153 it \*torte et line two and continues through -- it looks like the bottom of that page. And then on 276, 277, 278 and 279, it's most of all of those pages. ft 13 24 15 Then in the complaint, the allegation in paragraph 35 -- and I will pause, if Your Honor would like so to do that, while you are reading that. 16 17 /HE COURT: If you will, take a moment . Monks. 18 19 20 21 22 I don't see much as far as what is set forth in the latter pages of the deposition of Mr. that even mentions the plane or its connection with the alleged underage/ individuals on that plane. 23 24 23 Let me look at the complaint. Paragraph? MR. SCAROLA: Thirty-three. 34, ?f, In. 7101 COURT: Either way, or both. MR. SCAROLA: Let se do both, then. THE COURT: 'thanks. THE COURT: Okay. This is directed to 2 primarily to Xr. Rothstein. It says 'and 3 others.' Rut it says, quote -- paragraph 4 34 -- Upon information and belief. Rothstein and others claimed their investigators 6 discovered that there were high-prof ile 7 individuals onboard Epstein's private lc. 8 where sexual assaults took place and shoved 9 03 -- and possibly others -- copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries and international figures. 3 Remind me who is 03? :4 XS. ROCRENSACH: One of the investing '2 companies that was being defrauded by :6 Rothstein. THE COURT: Okay. I have read those other ones. Are there any other — '9 ER. SCAROLA: Paragraph 35, Your Honor, 90 then specifically references the litigation team. M you recall, the litigation team is 2.2 defined as including THE COURT: Thirty-five. For instance, 24 the litigation team relentlessly and 25 knowingly pursued flight data and passenger 4 6 7 a manifests regarding flights Rpm with famous individuals know that no undereged women we illicit activities took and the litigation to attempted to take the Celebrities In bolster the mark Coin rop aaaaa ly one of these enlaced effort to am that was taking \:2 :3 place. d. SCAROLA: I don't know if Your ook a look at 36, but that's a fit reference to Mr. and his conduct of the discovery, and then 42(k). a a0-something that was \:6 :8 :9 20 21 22 >3 71 25 THE EMU: Thirty-six. One of Plaintiffs' counsel, deposed three of Epstein's pilots, and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot. The pilots were deposed by for over 12 hours, and never asked one question relating to or about R.M., L.M. and Jane Doe as it related to transportation on flights of PM clients on any of Epstein's planes. Rut asked many inflammatory and 22 Honor, that having made those allegations in the complaint, ally allegations that no assault:1 f to t 4 hat that was untrue. He knew that children place on the plane, Mr. Epstein knew N were being assaulted on the plane. He knew loading irrelevant questions about the pilots' thoughts and beliefs, which could only have been asked for the purposes of pumping -- that word is used in quotes - the cases and thus by using the deposition, to sell the cases -- or a part of them -- to third parties, end quote. 62(k). Told investigators, as reported in an Associated Press article, that celebrities and other famous people had flown on Epstein's plane when assaults took place. Therefore, even tho none of PM's clients claim they flew in's planes, the litigation teen s nd flight logs. Why? Again we the investment pump, enquote. y without any relevance t claims made by PEA the elle Our pOSitiOn, obviously. 7 20 12 23 24 15 26 SO the flight lOgS are clearly relevant and material for that purpose, as is all of the evidence with regard to what Mr. Epstein knew was occurring on those airplanes. And that directly contradicts what is included in this complaint as a basis for his belief that was fabricating these claims. 11 27 28 is THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Sterol.. MS. ROCKEIIBACE: Your Honor, may 1 use the Elmo for a minute? 20 22 23 24 23 THE COURT: Sure. MS. ROCREHRACH: I really appreciated Mr. Link's presentation this morning based on the law, because after the november 29th hearing, I went back and I spent a good part of the weekend looking at malicious 21 that there were high-profile individuals wh' were present on the plane. And had a reasonable basis to conduct this discovery pursuant to applicable Florida law and applicable federal law as well as, because it was reasonably calculated to teed to the discovery of admissible evidence. prosecution cases, because I thought I must 3 something, because all I hear Mr. Scarola in 4 court saying is he's going to prove that the allegations In the original proceeding that 6 my client filed are false. And I never knew trial. The Debrincat case actually has the :2 most guiding principle in it for this Court, 3 which is going to, I think superimposes the Mr. ' lawsuits on behalf of the three 3 6 9 course of judicial proceedings. So when Mr. Scare's pulls complaint, my client's or ng and wants to parse thro allegations or Paragra I'm going to prove that that stet s false and You Should neve it, that's net what the malicious pr u on law says. That's not wha ^ are h to do. \:6 :8 :9 20 21 .22 23 And, In fact, that's the Liabos case that Your Honor discussed with us back on November 29th, where there's a mixed question of fact of law, Your Honor has to do that threshold determination of If there's any question or dispute of those facts that my client relied on were not in existence. It the facts existed, then you have to determine, as the Court, whether my client had sufficient probable cause. 21 25 So what are the facts that my client relied on? They are not the flight logs. for Your Honor to decide as a d er, whether the facts that my ifionibly relied on existed et the commenced the original proceeding. 10 I see why it's a focus, though, because Mr. Sterol\* wants to try other cases. This is not a sexual abuse case. It is not a federal court action, a Crime Victims' Rights action. It's not even a defamation case, which Your Honor clearly stated thy morning when denying the affirmative defenses related to defamation. 11 32 11 34 15 ti So to allow flight logs into this malicious prosecution case i ompletely irrelevant to the issue er the fact:. that sy client reliad an he fled the original proceedin ve n existence at the time that he f orr 39 The f the there was a civil action f feicure proceeding against Rothstein edyith the D.S. Attorney's 20 o that the ROChStein's firs wag 21 ; that Mr. held himself 22 out Partner in 01;8 firs; that 9 \\ Mr had the three lawsuits, which - even concedes in his most recent depOs1t100 -- were used by Mr. Rothstein r He's not relying on those flight logs. That's a complete red herring for the Court. 1S 1 10 31 12 The Racorbeek lawsuit, brought by Mr. Bill Scherer, down in Fort LaVderdale, who was quoted in a newspaper article, NY Client read and relied on that said Mr. Rothstein was tricking investors. He 23 used Rpstein's cases as a showpiece and 24 bait. Mitch Rpsteln Cases? The one that 15 had. fabricate -- and that's the word that Mr. testified to under oath -- to fabricate -- and create a fantasy. That was another word Mr. used. ?hose facts, did they exist? it sounds like we're in agreement. Those facts existed. 14 So the flight logs are irrelevant. 17 They are far astray from what we are here to 18 try. And they are an attempt to open up 39 some other lawsuit, sexual -- 20 By the way, the three clients of 21 Mr. Mr. concedes, were 22 not -- you never heard Mr. Scarola deny 23 that -- because Mr. conceded, they 24 are not on my client's planes. 25 So this, like many of the other exhibits, your Honor, suit be precluded, 2 because they are wholly irrelevant. And if there was any remote probative value, they 4 ore prejudicial to talk about flight loos and celebrities who may have been on my 6 client's planes. 2 THE CORRY: I think that the issue itself -- meaning the tangential allegations 9 that were made that mentioned flight logs or mentioned the good faith discovery aspects of Mr. ' plight relating to his three :2 clients -- has some relevancy. 11 However, the flight logs themselves would be subject to -- and the Court is '2 sustaining at this juncture the relevancy objection, and also a 403 objection, and that is, that while mentioning the fact that :0 Mr. In good faith whatever the case say have been -- sought these flight 20 logs as part of his discovery process representing the three young woven, at the 22 Some time the Court has expressly indicated :3 Its significant reservations. And in fact. 24 it's condemnation of trying either those 2s cases in this courtroom -- es for as the 1 4 malicious prosecution case is con or more importantly, that we a potentially constructively underaged or over the a albeit potential semis aims .• in this forum. \:6 MR. SCAROLR: Your Honor? May I raise a question. \:8 :9 THE COURT: Briefly. MR. SCAR01A: Thank you. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Do I understand the Court's ruling to be that Mr. is going CO be able to explain why he was seeking the discovery he was seeking, why he was seeking the flight logs, the fact that he did obtain flight logs that confirmed independent information So again, it may become relevant as to why Mr. E at about his buaineS seski Out thou flight lOge In good faith discovery, the flight ma\* s. In this Court's respectful upon its ruling, ere irrelevant. there's any probative value at all. y would be materially outweighed by the prejudice of 403. about children being transported on the airplane? THE COURT: The latter IS the one th will have to be discussed further, again. as I pointed out earlier, when the context comes up and it's introduced or attempted to be introduced outside the presence of the jury. To the, what I perceive to be three 10 questions, the two former questions, the 21 answer would be yes. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Will the rt take 21 Judicial notice of Vlori to 90.404 14 (2), which is cosmos' reed as the 15 Rule, and V Rule 41900, 14 which expressly t introduction of 1/ evidence wi other sexual as assaults dren, so that the jury IT is &&&&& he act that Mr. IIIIIII, not 20 a deed faith basis to conduct this 21 but quite arguably would have 22 bee Osonly negligent to have failed to pu ue it? 2A V 4 N THE COURT: The only thing I would say to that. Mr. Sterol\*, is I don't want to six 2 • 20 11 32 23 apples and oranges. And that is, I don't want to place the Court's incrisinator on getting too far afield and turning this into a case about alleged sexual exploitation, particularly of others, outside of Mr. ' representation. That would serve only co inflame the jury, and, again, would cause the playing field to become unleveled, because the defense to the malicious prosecution Clefs, i.e.. EpStein and his attorneys, would have to be fighting elms, that thif ray not even know about much, such less the ones that they do. 14 15 IS 22 Ie 19 20 21 22 23 24 SO again. I want to center on those three claims that were brought by Mr. on behalf of his clients, and center on those aspects that would be relevant to the malicious prosecution claim and the alleged ginning up of those claims, the alleged attempt to align himself with Rothstein, the alleged attempt to factor these cases, potentially Mr. conduct as it related to those factoring matters. 23 MR. SCAROLA: I u -- I or -orr•• ' didn't mean to interrupt. Clear, and that is, that the relationship 5 your question regarding the cases that talk befits the dignity of the courtroom, without 2 subsequent similar acts, those cases are nor, obviously, as to the three plaintiff: 2 Till:COURT: What I'm trying to say In between the legitimacy of the three 3 things like flight logs, the danger of elates -- t..X., E.N. and Sane Doe -- are 4 unfair prejudice. And also, in -- to answer going to be permitted in a manner that 6 about the prior similar acts or perhaps even pejorative commentary as to Mr. Epstein, a from the forum of which the actual criminal at issue. 9 claim, or perhaps even a civil claim that And as conceded by Epstein in his .8 stems from the alleged assault, is being lc papers, once Mr. Mr. :sink and Xs. Rockenbach :1 heard. 31 became involved to the ratter, and that is, :2 Again, what I'm trying to emphasize is 12 there's no conceivable way t those issues '5 directly or indirectly, whether purposefully 15 his deposition testimo o the extent that :6 or not, inflame this jury. it he testified. d t i that these three Epstein's phone records. 21 gin up, overexaggerate, whatever 22 I approach, Your 22 the a way be, the value Of those Cases t0 :3 Honor? And I can swap with the court 2 t e investors, whatever damage was caused 0 Epstein as a result thereof. \:3 that I do not want to introduce tangential 11 can be ignored, because ature of :4 matters into this ease which would either 14 Mr. Epatetn's announc ense well et. .2 So that is the ruling of the Court. IT cases were a of s• type of an :es I want to move forward now on to the :8 Sieber:et scheme y Rothstein and others, '1 next issue that's being objected to, that is It including 1 tuition team -- which is :a what is generically listed as Jeffrey 20 . as Including -- to Somehow 24 Exhibits 10 and 9, the phone records that 25 were produced to my office by Mr. Sterol\*. So that's the clear unadulterated I • Your Honor, the objection is ical 1 ruling of the Court as to that issue. 2 to the last in that they are n 2 Xs. SCARCE-A: And I understand that. 3 My client's phone records, th a any sir. My question to you is, if there is . 4 remote relevance as to y e may specific allegation in the complaint -- 5 have called on any giv day. n't think ?XX COURT: That was brought by 6 that's going to be -- I it's Mr. Epstein. 7 prejudicial. 1 k there's a danger of MR. SCAROLA: -- that was brought by 8 prejudicing this y. 6 Mr. Epstein against Mr. , does You-:2 ey th k we may hear that there is going 12 use to prove it's false, is there any issue 3 to ome attempt to prove the falsity of 13 about the tact that if he alleged it in the individual allegation in the original 24 complaint and It's false. we get to prove 9 T t gut sure whet relevance il Honor's ruling contemplate that we get to .0 Mr. •r thinks that phone records have 20 prove that allegation is false? Without • t 11 us prosecution action, unless 11 getting into whit exhibit we are going to :5 proceeding, which is not what we should be 15 it's false? \:6 doing here in this action. 16 THE COURT: There's no issue as far 6 \:2 THE COURT: Thank you. 17 I am concerned. 20 are not here to prove the falsity of claims 20 hearing something entirely different 2: in the original complaint. 21 repeatedly free the other side. I didn't 72 I would like some guidance from the 22 understand how they can possibly be makinv \:te MR. SCAROLA: I am -- I continue to be 28 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. t think :: extremely puzzled by that statement, that we 16 that helps a great deal, because I have been .74 THE COURT: No need to be puzzled. I 24 prove the falsity of every false allegation 23 Court. 23 that argument that we weren't permitted to 25 think I've already made myself abundantly 23 in the complaint. THE COURT: My intent Is to hold 2 Mr. Hostel': accountable -- as I try to 1- 2 each and every day, no wetter whether I, litigant or attorney -- and that is, what they writ\*, they are going to have to stand 6 behind. And t have got no issues in flit-7 respect at all. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. Them' 9 very helpful. I appreciate that clarification. TMR COURT: Now, again, the mere fact that Mr. Epstein mentions flight logs in his '3 complaint does not ipso facto make the :a entire flight log disclosure relevant to the '5 jury's consideration of the claims. \:6 So I want to temper my broad statement by that example as it ray constitute .8 examples in other matters that he's claimed. '9 But generally, globally, yes. The :o accountability Saline le still resonating with the Court, and will always resonate for as long as I am doing this. :2 MR. SCAROLA: Thank yOU, sir. I 00 appreciate that clarification. I'm sorry to 25 the extent that any of that may seem to be reasonable person would bring this civil proceedings? That's what the case law says. THR COURT: Row else is that testing. Mr. Link, but for the actual allegations that were brought? Someone could be conjuring up any thought process that they ray have to possibly bring a claim. But it's not until that black and l= document is served on someone and a filing fee is paid, and the 21 litigation commences -- and as contemplated 22 13 la 35 by the jury instructions and the law - continued by the defends malicious prosecution claim, th &incite, to make this at all ti 37 Is MR. LINK: I th IFen answer that question ve a ly, d here is why -- and you rats a reel good point. It 20 You, S role absolutely gets to So here Is when Is lipStein'S is filed, December 7th, 2009. ting to you that if you read the ewe Court case that just came out, it ill tell you what happen, afterwards is all aubject to the litigation privilege. 6 7 9 that very, very briefl TIIK COURT: Sure. ir. YR. LINK: that way and we' ted that ruling. We don't ag61 that t's what the law VO heard the Court rule SU that's the playing field that se or us. :6 COURT: The playing field being - n you don't agree is exactly what, so t we can maybe clarify whatever your disagreement is so that neither of us or any of us are working under any false pretenses. : \:9 70 71 MR. LINK: Your Honor, we don't believe that truth or falsity of any specific allegation has anything to do with malicious prosecution. It has everything to do with defamation. Here is why. z2 23 25 we believe that malicious prosecution focuses on the information that you make the decision to go forward with the lawsuit. Did you have enough information that a argument after Your Honor has rul helps me a great deal. het TNN COURT: Let's move . Y.N. LINK: Your Ho gnment on 2 TER COURT: Which Supreme Court case you are talking about? 10 21 12 XS. ROCKIDIRACH: Under headnote one. KR. LINK: -- that everything that happens after 12/7/09 IS protected, it's subject to privilege. What the allegation, are, the truth or falsity, any statements made by the lawyers, any statements made by the parties or witnesses. 23 24 THE COURT: Hold on just a moment. What about, though, extra judicial 15 statements? The Debrincat case, the Wol fa IS case, for case that we had, was confined to 27 issues dealing with the litigation itself. MS. ROCKENBACH: Debrincat. MR. LINK: It's the first thing it says -- 18 The concern that Wolfe had was 19 primarily one of chilling effect on the 20 ability of, in that case, a rather 21 well-known law firm in Miami and their 22 ability to properly litigate their case 23 without feeling -- feeling tethered by that. 24 What transpires outside of the 25 litigation, are you suggesting to me, would not be relevant, meaning publication, things 2 of that nature, things that this expert is 3 going to say in terms of damages caused to as a result of this filing and its continuation. 6 YR. LINK: We are on two different 7 points then. 8 THE COURT: Sorry. I may have 9 misunderstood. MR. LINK: You got it, but you are on two different points, so let me tell you '2 this. '3 The extra ?edictal statements -- and 4 it's a great example. Rpstein sues for '5 abuse of process, RICO, whatever he sues 6 for. Outside of the courtroom kr. Epstein stands up and says to a reporter, 8 Mr. Is a thief. There's no pert of that statement that's connected to the 30 litigation. He doesn't have immunity. He makes a statement about the 22 litigation, and hO says, I hove alleged 23 was connected to Rothstein's pond 24 scheme. He says ft outside of the SS courtroom. IS that Connected to the litigation? Yes, it is. So I don't think the law 3 all. And i don't think Mr. 4 dispute it if you asked 5 litigation privilege p 6 happens in a lawsuit th \*sties, 7 witnesses, levy connected to the Hlti d efything that nd judge, that are ion. He would Say, Canoe -- he said it in he said it in this courtroom Imes -- all of that is :2 by the litigation privilege. \:3 SCAROLA: No. There is one tion. And the one exception is continuing to maintain the lawsuit in the :6 absence of probable cause. That's one 7 exemption. Everything else is protected by :8 the litigation privilege. The one thing :9 that is not, the one exemption carved out of 20 the litigation privilege by every court, up until the Third CCA decided otherwise, and 92 the Fourth OCA issued its opinion, every i3 other court in the nation has said you rs cannot maintain a lawsuit in the absence of 25 probable cause. You can't file it in the It 20 absence of probable cause. THE COURT: You're bringing back bad semories. tf t heard that once, I heard it a thousand times. I think that's why Judge went out of our -- very kind way -- I am saying that with an abundant amount of respect. I think she's an exceptional appellate judge -- she stated that the trial court correctly followed the Wolfe decision. Off the record. IA discussion was held off the record.) TI4ECCE/RT: I do need a oak. I hate to break you in the midd thought, but I do have some lunch 1 t to make sure that I respect It's about five or so after noo back, please. assembled What another t, going to give you this afternoon. So we whenever we start and two hours at I would like to do is try to get ugh as much Of this as we can. My Continued suggestion is to work with each other, if you can, as far as any of 92 these exhibits say be concerned. And then what I will do is -- if you are prepared to do it -- is get into the motion to stay i' we have time to do that today, okay? MR. GOLDBERGER: Judge, i apologise. So Pm kind of responsible for the stay motion, and I'm juggling a couple of ball, right now. I'm not going to be here this afternoon. I got called up for trial. I have to go prepare for that. Ona personal level, son and daughter-In-law, their due date IS today. ' think it's happening so -- 24 vol COURT: If you would have told -0 IS that. I would have been able to hear it 16 before we did this evidence Issue, becauee 27 think I mentioned earlier that I was 28 prepared to do this today. 19 You know, my suggestion is probably 20 that either Mr. Link or Ms. Roekenbach mould 21 argue it in your absence. 22 I will be glad to take it up the first 23 thing this afternoon, Jack, if it will help 24 you. But, you know -- 23 MR. OOLDSKRGER: I apologize for not telling you ahead of tire. 1 IN the CUCUTA' WW1 Om NE 2 THE COURT: I understand. You have a 3 lot on your mind and t respect that. Rut at . Case No. 501009C4040600XXXXIS 4 the same time, I told the parties before. 5 you know, I as slammed, and t have to me 6 this stuff pushed through in the best way 1 9 can describe it. So I'm going to have to SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 8 insist that you make yourself available. 919T2224111 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. IN AND IW PALM DRAWN COUNTY, =BID.% &TYRE? EPSTEIN, . PLaintirt/Couftter-Dereedeett, individually, 9 I will be willing to do it, as I said, Defaxients/Counter-Plaintiff. '0 first thing out of the gate. I don't expect 10 / '1 it to take very long. I'm expecting it to it Mae :t '2 be about a 15-minute argument per side. And 13 3 I will get you out of here, to the best of 4 my ability, by 2:00 in the afternoon, as s6 DATE MEN: Tuesday, 5th, '5 long as there's no unforeseen circumstance. TIME: 10:02 a.m. 5 p.n. II 14 TRANSCRIPT OT PeCCEED" 9 is f1 PUCE 205 Y. Rem ICC Les Paln h, Florida 7 co-counsel. It BEItRE: Nate', Pmestdirq MAT:, \:6 MR. GOLDBERGER: Let me talk to 8 MR. SCAROLA: I can do my argument in is 9 five minutes on that issue. This cause en be heard at the tin:, ard piece 20 aforesaid. the following proceedings were rape \:0 /NM COURT: I don't think it'll going t0 take more than 15 minutes CO present, then it :2 five on the rebUttal. So I'm telling you :3 right now, we can get it done in less than 2 645 Ir.Beech lakes Boulevard, Suite 100) :4 half an hour, i will be glad to do that. t Nest Palm Beach, FL 33401 55 will give you every accommodation, as I 12 Souls D. Beech Reporting Service, 7nc. 15611 471-2995 ' • would with any of you here. I the 1 THE COURT: Continue on with the 2 same thing. 2 discussion. Mr. Link, you were in I Rut I need to respect f th r mid-thought. i prepared in accordance ith t formation here to do the stay. 6 that I received from Co sterday in TNIt COURT: Let's go ahead end take, the manner whiC is that as the next e- as Care Of that. 8 the next viable o review and -- I 8 Mr. Goldberger. 3 haven't 0 thr0 the supplement motions il MR. 03LDRERGER: Thank you tor tenon o to c t. That is what I was planning 20 me out Of Order. One of those days I hay-In day. 21 SO much going on. 4 I've put aside this ti t ve ER. SCAROLA: I think Mr. Goldberger is 2 sorry about that. Again, it is 12 INK COURT: I completely understand. 3 due respect to your long experience 23 thank you also for adjusting your schedule the fact i think you're an excellent 14 as u011. 5 lawyer and a great person, so it's not 25 All right, let me got my materials :6 personal at all, it's just needing to get 26 ready for that aspect of the case. t think 7 this done. 27 I am ready to go. Please proceed. \:0 Thank you. And thank you all for la MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, Honor. So 7: IA recess was had 12:09 p.m. - 1:25 p.m.) 21 important for us to kind of discuss first 72 22 with the Court what it is that we are 73 23 seeking to have resolved before this gaze -- SI 24 we would like to see it proceed. \:9 understanding. I appreciate that. See you 39 we have a motion t0 stay your proceedings 20 back assembled at 1:20. 20 pending at this time. I think it's Mr. Scarola, in a prior hearing, had 2 mentioned that this is not just about the 3 resolution of the MIA. Mr. Epstein perhaps 4 has other matters that he could potentially 5 have criminal liability concerning in other 6 jurisdictions that would not be covered by 7 the NPA, which is part of the CUBA. 8 THE COURT: Let's put on the record 9 exactly what you're speaking about so that if anyone needs to review this they :1 understand these acronyms completely. \:2 MR. GOLDBERGER: So the first matter we '3 have, Your Honor, is what has been referred :4 to as the CVRA case. That is the Crime '5 Victims' Reporting Isicl Act. And that :6 matter Ss being litigated in federal court in the Southern District of Florida court before Judge Marra. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. Since we are 20 doing this for purposes of the record, think that you may have mistaken. CVRA IS :2 not cribs victims' reporting act. It is the 21 Crime Victims' Rights. 24 Ml. DoLDRERDER: Thank you very m 25 I appreciate that, Mr. Sterol,. uch. is It 20 21 22 agreement and subject Mr. Epstein ty criminal prosecution for a matter that he has already pled guilty to. It tugs at the very, very cornerstone. of due process, Your Honor. But as a criminal defense attorney with a lot of years doing this, I have to act cautiously, because of one thing that Judge Marra said. Judge Marra, in one of the orders in 10 this case, indicated that setting aside 11 the non-prosecution agreement is somethin2 12 that he would consider. 23 So I would be rests Id 24 committing malpractic mile my 15 client to testify in m era in your lawsuit before Your Ho r In tt s that would be 12 part of the n oaec ion agreement. So that's ki or prpcedurally where we are right no I wanted to clarify for the Court, are not seeking to stay this Case reason other than matters that are ained within the non-prosecution greed:enc. NOR. Mr. Scarola has made reference r 3 4 5 6 So that matter concerning th is pending before Judge Werra Southern District of Plori matter, Mr. as at n for three individuals C d Jane Dot Number I, who happen to case are see of setting aside non-pro tion agrewnt. I case caved in this the unprecedented remedy '0 record, we need to establish non-prosecution agreement in :2 ace t t prevents the VS Attorney's Office :3 southern District of Florida in ng forward on any criminal prosecution of Mr. Epstein related to certain enumerated :6 offenses if Mr. Epstein complies with his :7 non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein has compiled with all parts :9 of that non-prosecution agreement. He has 20 served a sentence that was part of that 2: non-prosecution agreement, and he's going about his life. 73 In an unprecedented action, '4 Mr. on behalf of these individuals, 25 is seeking to set aside that non-prosecution 2 potential prosecutions in other jurisdictions: New York, US Virgin Island:, many other places. That is not what this stay motion is about. THE COURT: But isn't that critical to the analysis as to at least one prong of the required elements that the Court is expected to look into, and that is, the length of time that the delay is being sought? Because even though the argument that you're making fits within a certain perimeter, and somewhat similar to the discussions we had last week about each side wanting to frame their respective cases in the manner that they see fit -- and I respect that because they are advocates - but from the Court's perspective, from the general public's perspective, from the perspective of Mr. , when it comes to Mr. Epstein's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, whether or not the parameters that you're seeking in your motion only applies in the 0PA at issue here, that save potentiality of criminal prosecution in any of these jurisdictions where -- not being a Criminal defense lawyer, i am not going to 2 sit here and try to estimate what the 3 statute of limitations are for these t)T. 4 of alleged criminal activity -- S And again, I am not accusing anybody of 6 anything. I want that to be clear. You 7 brought up these other jurisdictions and the 8 potentialities. I don't know what those 9 statute of limitations are. I only know that in my limited experience when it comes to these types of potential claims or :2 potential charges, that the statutes are 3 typically extraordinarily longer, :4 particularly when minors are involved for '5 very obvious reasons. \:6 So while the parameters that you are suggesting may be your intent, that when a :8 broader perspective Is looked upon, it's '9 very possible that the sane outcome that. 20 i.e., the invocation of the Fifth • Amendment -- which I respect. I understand. 22 and fully intend to comply with his ability 23 to invoke the Fifth when appropriate - - we 24 don't know when that ends. 25 MR. GOLDBERGER: I have a simple answer 3 4 6 for that, Your Honor. And I have ere and very carefully listened to pronouncements and the way handled this hearing an have had. And you hew indite eC that what's in play in this a C.M., T.M.. that we and Jane Doe Nu I. lbose are the Individuals that e indicated you are going t a low to mony concerning. Those '0 are a Same individuals that are in 's 411 we care about. \:2 COURT: Excuse me for interrupting, 3 want to make sure that this is L.M. and Jane Doe -- these three individuals are now over the age of IS. \:6 Have they agreed to have their names 7 utilized at this point? :8 Mr. scarola, do you wish to comment on 9 that? Do you know? 20 Y.R. SCAROIA: I cannot speak authoritatively about that, Your Honor. 72 THE COURT: My preference, Mr. Goldberger, is to continue to go ahead 24 and use the initials until I'm comfortable, 25 because the criminal charges that were 71 10 11 brought, SS you have recited thew -- again, I appreciate the fact that you were here last week to help with those aspects - those criminal charges pertain to them when they were minors. So I don't want to, by way of convenience or otherwise, suggest without a full agreement or something that' going to satisfy the Court, that they are willing to have their names utilized, even at this juncture, because my comfort love' at this point is not high. 22 11 24 15 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: 1 100 cent understand. I have live ase for 10 years. These names h throughout both the al litigation 6,1 the litigation s. 27 15 THE Marra, t e case before Judge ye been used? 15 20 21 HR. : They have not been. SCAR01-A: Your Honor, if I may, 6: ht about it. It le my belief that Only one EPetein victim who has ntarlly agreed that her :lase may be ed. and that is 10 11 come out of this is getting those names and listening to thoie name\*, I don't know any of these young ladies. I don't know any of their remilies. The name, don't Sound a bit familiar to me. SO at least I don't have to worry about that. 22 13 Mr. Link. did you want to add anything? MR. LINK: if I might. 14 15 The witness list of Mr. actually names these folks by nese. 1t 27 MR. SCARO:J1: That was inadvertent. Your Honor, and we plan to address it. le 19 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINK: The second thing, with YO,2,- 20 21 22 23 24 23 Honor's permission, we brought the plea. You were asking about it last tura what the actual counts were, and I have a copy of the non-prosecution agreement, which I can provide to the Court. We have the actual documents. The others, I'm almost certain, have not -- and in fact, when the deposition was recently taken of C.M., it was with the expressed stipulation that she would be referred to in the record by those initials. ?RR COURT: The Only positive that's 2 THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate that. \] 9 MR. LIKE: We will file them so they're part of the court record. S THE COURT: For the today, I'm going to 6 ask our court reporter -- absent any Mr. Scarola's argument. 8 simply amend the record so that only the I know what's coming. ghat we started this. 9 Initials are used, please, so that we don't THE COURT: And that's critical, '0 have the names specifically stated. And 10 because but for Mr. Rpstein's action in I who is the counter-plaintiff in this case. So Mr. Epstein is put between the proverbial rock and a hard place in this situation, Your Honor. THE COURT: You know the thrust of 7 objection from respective counsel -- to MR. GOLDBERGER: I know what's coming. '1 hearing no objection. 11 bringing this lawsuit in 2009 and amending :8 level is satisfied, I want to do everything la summary judgment that ltime ly brought :6 the Jane tee as the third individual. 16 judgment resul nq t f -- that is, ii interrupting you. 28 Mr. Rpsto n -- t a never would have been an '2 We may need to address this later on 12 his complaint In 2011. and t failing t, '3 down the line. But again, until my comfort 21 address in any fashion t n for '5 we can to continue to use their initials or 25 by Mr. against . Epstein and a '7 Again, Mr. Goldberger, I apologise for 29 judgment of -sal f the claim by '9 Ye. GOtDBERGER: And I apologies if the It issue. we re dealing with now would :0 names were mentioned. 20 ve been an ISSUO. THE COURT: That's Okay. 21 •n certainly understand, and I :3 to answer the Court's well-founded question, 2 re on if Mr. had brought some type 22 MU. GOLDBERGER: Anyhow, Judge -- but 22 bel there would be firmer footing to :4 is there any finality to the request for a a t claim against Mr. Epstein, lot's say. 2s stay, and the answer is that Your Honor has some type of defamation claim -- 7 am not (ISPHASI:SV • ruled already that the testimony ill 1 suggesting there are any grounds for that. 2 be allowed in this trial is t c f 2 I am just giving an example -- if he had 1 these three individuals; th er v same brought a defamation claim against 8 three individuals who a et Mr. Epstein for things that may have 5 attempt to set aside t non-p 0 ',Button resulted from extra judicial statements that 6 agreement. may have been made by Mr. Epstein to the 7 So 7 want ke it clear to the Court press, to whomever, to third parties, 8 our request for a a a limited request 6 published, and had some damage t0 9 \[Or a S y, until ch time as the CVRA case 5 Mr. r I could understand the o is r 01 And it has nothing to 10 with 10 interplay and the potential strategic leg women who may be making claim. 21 decisions that would have been made by :2 •ain't r. Epstein. And that becomes even 12 Mr. in. on the one hand, having 7., . '7 rtant, based on Your Honor's ruling 13 Crime Victims' Rights Act claim being 5 that you are going to allow the parties to 12 Mr. Epstein has to preserve his Fifth '6 go into this case and not tangential Issues 24 Amendment right to self-incrimination, and - 7 involving other individuals. 27 the fact that Mr. acted in taking t you've made, that those are the facts 24 brought -- which, arguably, out of necessity \:8 So that is our -- that Is the area -- 28 the offensive in bringing the tort claim of 20 stay concerning. 20 an exemplar -- against Mr. Epstein, the 21 So where are we procedurally? Well, 21 strategies would then coalesce, co-exist and 72 this attempt to set aside the 22 would create concern of a significant nature \:9 and that is the case that we are seeking the 29 some nature, generically -- again, just as 23 non-prosecution agreement was brought by 21 for the Court. 25 that. It was brought by 25 address that? 74 I'll'''. We can't lose sight of 24 But this is quite different. Mow do we MR. GO:IMAGER: Okay. MISlosetf011Yd I HPA. 3 It's the playing field that we are on right case for an indeterminate period of ties. 2 Judge, strategy has nothing to do with this. I am not asking this Court to stay this 4 There's three things that can happen, Your io having to testify, without having to worry other remedies in his CVRA case. lie could 9 about rirth Amendment privileges, whether do that. Judge Marra could enter his order '0 he's implicating himself in any kind of 10 on the account to set aside the !IPA, or this • criminal liability. He could have gone 11 Court can temporarily stay the matter until 5 Now, Mr. Epstein filed his lawsuit Honor. Mr. can volunteer to not 6 against Mr. and he very well could seek the remedy of setting aside the 9 have gone forward In that lawsuit without non-prosecution agreement. He's seeking '2 forward on that case against Mr. 12 such time one of those thing •open. 3 without having to get on the stand and 13 There's been no tea n the record :4 testify. 34 frost anybody as to ho that tay is '5 Now, in defense of that case, if that 15 going to require. :6 case had gone forward and the defense had 26 I think a rf you asked 5 decision to make as CO whether he was going is like that .- how 0110 IS that CVAA Case .7 called Mr. Cpstein, then he would have had a is Mr, e stand or anything • 1 t0 answer the question. It gOing t0 n r. Mr. said, Well. 20 21 f go an ray a long time. Well, a only record you have right now 20 THE ODOR,: Well, I Couldn't imagine, In reviewing Mr. Epstein's complaint now for :2 the -- beyond 10 times -- that he could have 22 the a thing is not coming to fruition. 23 avoided taking the witness stand to justify :4 r5 most, if not all of his claims, in that initial suit. Out or) ahead. the 2\\11 THE COURT: Well, that, and newspaper 47 47 1:Ybel:nes.::" 04I the ( S HCASSr • MR. COLOBRAGEA: If we put t ide, 1 federal court is not looking to try the 4 pending right now. You ca 1 nything 1 an order until the spring or summer of 2018. 5 you want. You can cal it coo t r- NA. GOLDBERGER: I don't have a 6 plaintiff, counter-defe - I practice recollection of that, Your Honor. Hut if 4 on the ocher el f the elevator -- but we that's been out there, I accept that -- Is are defending a u right now. We are 4 THE CGVRT: It didn't give we much ) the der nts in is case. il confidence that it was going to be 7 and we turn to the playing fie t 7 case -- or there's going to be a significant 3 on right now, we have one 1 ui hiatus in terms of Judge Marra getting out o t defend that case. It is not 10 accomplished in a relatively brief period '3 • • ought an action to set aside 13 me -- not going to be accomplished before 5 And Mr. Epstein hos no choice, if I'm his 15 here. :6 lawyer, but to invoke his Fifth Amendment 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: My review of PACER, 1 ay field. We can't defend this 21 time. And certainly -- at least, again -7 use of what the plaintiff has Honed 12 anecdotally, without having it here in front Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. 24 March 13 of 2018, which is the trial day -7 privileges. 27 think, is they are at the point where 72 the playing field we have right now. 22 judgment, means to me someone is asking to 7) And we didn't bring this upon 23 end this thing. I think that's the juncture .0 What does that do? It's going to allow II there's a motion for partial summary - o Mr. Scarola to ask for all of these adverse 39 judgment that's outstanding. So that to 20 inferences and try to truck roll those 20 me -- again, not being necessarily a civil 7: adverse inferences to this jury. And that's 21 practitioner -- when I hear the word summary 74 ourselves. They are doing it because they 24 that it's at right now. 25 have brought this action to set aside the 25 So my point is, Your Honor, that we are not seeking an indeterminate stay. And the 1 2 Court has read the papers and you are aware TEE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberger. 3 of the various factors that the Court is thank you. I will give you a couple minutes 4 considering in determining whether to grant to rebut if you choose to. rhetorically, what is the prejudice at this 7 point for a limited stay so that matter which this malicious prosecution claim 8 resolves? arises was filed on December 9 of 2009. So 9 Mr. , if he has been damagez. we are about to observe the ninth 'o has been damaged already. They want to try is anniversary of the pendency of this '1 this case in March. Everything that has 22 litigation. '2 happened, has happened. Nothing to going to 22 114K COURT: Excuses\* f my '2 change. 13 mathematical -- :4 \*6 reccepense that Mr. is claiming that '9 substantial amount of loss that he has it been br0u t0 e attention of the Court. io encountered as a result of the ongoing 20 we know that the same basis upon :2 eight years. 22 9, 2009, because the complaint '3 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, when you 2 it If rrrrrr in paragraph 42111 to the '4 weigh that -- Mr. admittedly has 4 ndenCy or the non-prosecution agreement. 5 testified in deposition that he's So it was there. And Mr. Epstein knew it ( 4 ,1114SY 116 • successful. He's doing very well 1 was there when he filed this ease. 2 himself, and I congratulate hi fo 2 And as Your Honor observed, he filed 3 But when you weigh that to p to this case within days of the implosion of 4 Mr. Epstein that he has e Rothstein, Rosenfeldt a Adler when 1 he's got them back on he ea ' defend presumably Mr. would have been most 6 this case at this point susceptible to a malicious prosecution 7 I think -- r Honor, we talked about assault. Re didn't need to file it then. a the 403 analysis o er matters, prejudice 8 Me had at least four years in which to file 9 versus CS's\* ue. I think we can kind a it. o of a ncing analysis in this 20 If he's claiming he's a victim Of a :5 at the extreme prejudice that Mr. Epstein is 's suffering, well, he just can't defend this 16 were concealed from him, then the statute- :> case. 17 of limitation wouldn't have even begun to :0 Courts are designed to be level playing 18 '9 IIIIII, and that's got nothing to do with 19 So there's no question about the fact 20 what the Court's doing. But just by virtue 20 that Mr. Epstein brought this upon himself. 7: of the way the facts have come out in this 21 He initiated these proceedings nine years 22 case and procedurally what has happened, it 22 ago knowing, as Mr. Goldberger says, he 73 is not a level playing field for Mr. Epstein 23 could not defend them. 24 because he has no choice but to invoke his 24 And indeed he couldn't defend them. is wafting for everything to flow from that. 5 6 the stay. You have discussed one. t ask, Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: The complaint out of '2 THE COURT: What they will argue, though, is that there is financial '7 8 has built up over the years -- and Mr. Scarola was alluding to -- there's li 34 15 MR. SCAROtA: No That quite all right, air. I didn't e that comment as 311 1, IS any criticism h, but just t, observe th been nine years during w ch a m on t0 stay could have litigation over the last seven, going on 23 argument rests today existed on . 11 RICO action, he would have had at least five 12 23 years in which t0 file it. If he claims that sosehow he was unaware of the 14 15 reasonable basis for the filing of a clef, against Mr. because relevant fact- '2 '3 Mr. wants to have his 441, in t sooner than later. And there may some prejudice there. But when you look > 5 Fifth Amendment privileges, and Mr. Scarola 25 because in the face of a motion for similar/ judgment, which called upon him to disclose 2 the basis for his claims against 3 Mr. 'I'll'', he filed nothing. 4 And on the eve of the motion for summary judgment, he voluntarily dismissed 6 his case. Re didn't say, I need a stay in 7 order to be able to produce evidence to support my claims. Re allowed the claims to 9 be reaolved against his now conclusively. So those arguments, quite frankly, don't wake sense. And I have gone through :2 in the written response that we filed and :3 pointed out all of the stages in the :4 litigation where Mr. Epstein reasonably '5 could have come before the Court and said, I :6 need a stay. What the defense acknowledges in their :a motion to stay Ss 44 and this is a quote. '9 •floricia courts have long recognised that 20 although under certain circumstances a trial • court Ray grant a stay in a civil proceeding :2 for a limited time during the pendency of a :3 COnCUrrent criminal proceeding, Such a stall :4 is not constitutionally required. aS "The earlier the motion is made, the more favorably it's looked upon. ( S \\ shorter the stay can reasonabl 3 fa it's 4 anticipated to last, the mo looked upon.\* 6 7 The burden of pro stay reasonably can be a is not on us. Motion. this iced to last on the party making the 9 0 :2 :3 TR s is not a typical COnc egal -- strike that - final prosecution that we see le accident cases, for example, re may be corresponding vehicular slaughter case -- set aside or it cannot be set aside. If it is not set aside, then Mr. Goldberger tells us that there would I. no longer any basis for the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege. well, respectfully, I suggest that there is nothing in the record that supports the assertion that Mr. Epstein will waive his Fifth Amendment privilege upon the 10 favorable conclusion of the Crime Victim:' 11 Rights Act case. 12 THE COURT: As a second int, I 21 presume that, like any o SI case -- 34 this isn't construed lvil se, 35 correct, this Crime Rights Act 14 matter? 37 18 sir, it is. Subject to appeal \:6 YR. SCAROLA: Or a drunk driving charge -- \:8 :9 THE COURT: Or DUI-type issue. YR. SCAROLa: Clearly. Clearly that's the circumstance, Your Honor. 20 21 22 23 But let me talk about part of what Mr. Goldberger has said with regard to what we can reasonably anticipate with regard to length of this stay. 21 25 There are two possibilities with regard to the non-prosecution agreement. It can be la 20 THE hat's exactly what I was say. Either side can appeal. So words, the state COuld appeal -- or -- the actual federal government d appeal or Mr. Edward's client could weal 30 21 12 So, Mr. Epstein can have the advantage of a final disposition with regard to crimes only in the Southern District of Florida - as hie been repeatedly pointed out. That's all the non-prosecution agreement covers. 23 24 15 2t 27 28 19 20 21 22 But he still has a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer any questions about the crimes that he committed in the Southern District of Florida, because they are admissible in every other jurisdiction where he's been doing exactly the same thing to children for years. And no one could reasonably challenge that assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege. So that's one alternative. 23 24 23 The other alternative is the Crime Victims' Rights Mt case results in setting aside the non-prosecution ag . And no MR. SCAPOLA: Yes. sir. True. In addition to that, even assuming a final and conclusive resolution of the Crime Victims' Rights Act case, which upholds the validity of the non-prosecution agreement, there is a federal statute which sakes admissible in any other criminal proceeding evidence of other child victim crimes. matter what Mr. Goldberger may say \*bop-2 what he believes the merits of that class ta be and the likelihood of that outcome to be, Judge Marra has clearly indicated that Jeffrey Epstein faces the possibility of 6 having that non-prosecution agreement sr 7 aside, in which case, he faces criminal 8 exposure, criminal liability for the 4O 9 cases that we know of, and any other cases that are developed subsequent to that time. And those prosecutions can go on for years :2 and their appeals can go on for years. \:m So there simply is no basis, none, upon '4 which a prediction can be made as to a reasonable limitation associated with a stay :6 in this case. And these ere all things that Mr. Epstein had an opportunity to avoid, or :8 at leliet an opportunity to limit, by '1 delaying the filing of his maliciously filed Claim. He started this battle knowing the 22 Criminal exposure that he faced clearly at :3 the time -- not only in the Southern 24 District of Florida but knowing the Criminal exposure he feces elsewhere as well. THE COURT: I made a note 3 binder. And I think this 4 Suggesting, Mr. Scarola 5 wrong. 6 What I wrote last en I was 7 reviewing these rials, was that 8 Mr. Epstein by a h gh hie attorney should v rec ed the potential expo re, .e., to a malicious prosecution, broYlht suit against Mr. that matter as well. and \:6 n't want to include Rothstein in mix because that's a separate can of worms, which we don't have to get Into substantively at this point in time. \:8 :9 20 71 .22 73 75 I don't think there's any way to not consider that. In other words, when the various claims were brought against Rothstein, and L.M. , there should have been -- and the Court would make this finding in its ruling, subject to Mr. Goldberger's rebuttal -- that Mr. Epstein by and through his counsel should have realized the potential ramifications of bringing this lawsuit. And those potential ramifications being that if he did not have the ability to sustain the claims that he made -- whether by way of summary judgment. Jury trial, appeal. whatever the case might have been -- then that recognition should have carried over to anticipate the very exposure which he now is facing, that being the malicious prosecution 10 claim brought by Mr. IIIIIII. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Your Boner, f have just 12 one last ratter that I want t4 address. and 13 that is the subject of p 34 15 211 17 le le As. Your Honor, delay is never the f the burden of p experien does ham Sustain o altos, of the party with e already delay. And that n our ability to of proof, because 20 m fade and it isPaCte upon us to a 21 tonale degree than it does to the when we Carry the burden of proof. 22 But there's something more significant. 9 \\ nd that is, for nine years these A allegations have repeatedly been receiving S ' 20 11 12 13 14 15 It 17 So there is a very, very significant prejudice that haS already been suffered I, delay. There are other aspects -- less significant. But if this case wasn't filed until four years later, all of those appellate proceedings that were very costly to the plaintiff would have been avoided because the law would haven settled by that time. public attention without any final disposition exonerating Brad There is a poison that has been circulating within the stress: of knowledge that Brad has a right, an absolute right to put an end to. And the only way he Conclusively does that is with a judgment in his favor in thiS Case. 18 So there are many reasons to deny this 29 notion. There are no reasons to grant it. 20 Thank you, sir. 21 TNX COURT: Thank you, Mr. Scarola. 22 Mr. Goldberger. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: I don't want to 24 respond to each of Mr. Scarola's arguments. 25 1 want to just reiterate the playing field that we have here. The way things stand 2 right now, Your Honor, Mr. Epstein cannodefend this case. 4 He can attempt to defend the case, but 5 he's going to have these adverse inference, 6 that are going to be pointing at him 1 i 44 7 arrows. It's not a fair fight. And chi: 8 only way to avoid the situation where i. 9 not a fair fight is for a limited stay. And when Mr. Scarola says we could have filed our motion for a stay early on, we :2 specifically did not file our motion for stay early on because that case -- that :4 being the CUM case -- was in it's infancy. '5 As I've explained to the court, we're :6 at partial summery judgment status now, so 7 it's reasonable to assure -- despite what the newspapers say and despite how fast this '9 case has moved 44 we ere much farther along 20 in the Case, and a reasonable stay can take it a fair playing field, is all that 72 Mr. Epstein Is asking. In my enthusiasm. 7 May have said 71 Mr. Epstein pled guilty to offenses 25 involving the three women. If I did SOY 3 4 that, that was not a correct stat did not plead guilty to any of e women -- anything involvin os 6 7 THE COURT: Thank Moo both sides f your written and oral p Ions. Obviously I hay yen this a great deal of thought. I have I d the materials that have be OV100 0 me, including a '0 tempi the Me law that was provided our \:2 notion is denied. There was a :3 that was used in the motion filed by Epstein that has some analogous circumstances here. This talks in terms of :6 the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. 1 :7 will read it to you. But it gave me food :8 for thought as I was trying to decide -- on :9 the reviews from the papers -- the next step 20 in terms of how I was going to deal this and 21 the subject of oral argument. 72 It says, quote, A necessity of the 73 validity of an assertion of Fifth Amendment 74 privilege, the court must look to all of the 25 circumstances of the case and be governed as 10 Truth by personal perceptions of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence, end quote. And that's a quote from the case called SEC versus Militano. M-I-L-1-7-A-M-O, which was an order from the Southern District of Hew York citing -- and actually quoting from a case called Moffman versus United States at 34! US 479 and 486, a United States Supreme Court decision from 1951. 11 22 11 34 15 ti 27 ie le Why did that quote strike me as I vs: going through the actual iss that are before the Court on the est And that is, I think, e oy • quote, in that personal perce one of the peculiarities o e overn the Court's determlnati o - fdity of the \*\*\*\*\* tio th Amendment as by the facts act y evidence. 20 21 22 Rink this motion parallels that, type la because of the absolute icy of this particular case and It' !Missypr oral protocol and esnifestatiOnS. AS H this point is helpful to the Court i Elmo 42 n ter-The timeline that's up on the 2 of its analysis. And that is, that we have a situation where much of what was transpiring in the latter part of 2009 was the pendency of these three cases; L.M., R.W. and Jane Doe all represented by Mr. We had the added coeplieation of the implosion of the Rothstein firm due to the heinous activity that Mr. Rothstein ended up Pleading to. 10 11 12 23 14 15 16 27 18 19 20 21 We had, as 7 mentioned last week and ai Mr. Scarola reiterated today, what must have been an extremely harrowing experience for anyone concerned, including Rothstein himself. though 7 hold no personal empathy for him. I will, of course, as an aside. adjudicate the case with full recognition of his rights and remedies, as I would any other litigant. Rut in terms of these particular facts and the peculiarity of this matter, it's something that needs to be addressed and discussed. 22 23 24 25 And the timeline that follows, which is coapelling to the Court and its analysis, as it was earlier during recent hearings, that Mr. Rothstein's arrest and the time period -- which may not completely dovetail 2 with the federal agents raiding the 3 offices -- was a week before the subject 4 complaint filed by Mr. Epstein was initiated. 6 And as I mentioned earlier, what 1 7 wrote in the margin of the binder was what I perceived to be a reasonable consideration 9 by counsel for Mr. Epstein and mr. Epstein himself as the plaintiff in that 2009 case that he brought during the time period just indicated around December of 2009 and '7 here we are in 2017. which is actually the :4 eighth anniversary. '5 So my math skills weren't off too :6 badly, because the case was brought in December of 2009. We are here now in :4 DeCember of 2017. '1 As I Indicated, Mr. Epstein brought :0 this case through Counsel. And there is • well-stated axiom, generally, not in the 72 legal field, but Certainly has application 73 here. that typically the host defense is 74 with Offense. zi And by taking the offensive and filing 22 But a itical proceedings were set the civil context to suggest that applicable and appropriate time:" the very least, a stay could hiVP requested so that during these periods f times -- which I'm adopting but won't be reiterating for this record -- will be a actually, for the Court's purposes, constructively aware of what would have boon entailed for him to be able to, one, present and introduce the necessary legal and factual arguments to support his case; and two, be able to recognize the potential exposure that a malicious prosecution claim could bring at the inception of his filing of the '09 suit if he couldn't deliver on what 1 have globally suggested is an accountability issue. And this is standir: behind what has been filed. think amply Mr. S as pointed out that there were - rhos in the criminal courts talk -- critical stages of the p n things like Moray (oho c nfer ces have to be re-evelu ed and \*asked by the trial judge. 3 4 the lawsuit -- which he had every to S) do -- as I mentioned earlier, e have been a recognition at y ant of the potential exposu defendants but pria4ily EdgI ds when he brought that suit. 7 And that tial exposure should have been also tenets t that if he did not have sU bent a nition for whatever roes I'm not Suggesting -- there ma oea whore people just don't ight anymore -- those are rare, but occur. \:6 :8 :9 20 71 72 73 But there should have been that recognition that that potential exposure existed at the time the suit was filed, that a malicious prosecution case could have been in the offend and may well have been in the offend, if the necessary elements from a legal perspective or the requisite facts were not able to be proven or at least shown at the time of mummery judgment, which ultimately occurred, which was not defended. 75 So by taking the approach that Mr. Epstein through counsel took, he was 20 And it would have been when the motion was filed, which was approximately two StelthS prior to the Court, at that point. setting the case fOr the December 5 date - which was supposed to be today -- and not now when we are Several months removed fro: trial. it 12 13 20 The issue of accountability is an important one and has always been an important one to this Court. And having to live with the consequences of one's choices -- whether they be independent or az a result of an attorney bringing the action -- which is that party's own chosen action, his own claim -- in this case it would be Mr. Epstein through counsel - to be emphasized. 21 22 23 24 And again, the Court's analysis, though it will still be concerned about the timeliness -- timeliness does enter into the Court's view of this case -- the Court does 25 part of the order if you so desire -- a stay could have been requested and it could have been potentially far more compelling at onof those periods. 133 find it will be prejudicial to the interest I 135 your office prepare en order with some \] and that an individual on either side is citing to critical junctures, which you have 4 entitled to some finality. cited in your memorandum to support the 2 of Mr. to further delay the matter. detail. p -- citations as well as 5 The Court further finds that simply by Court's decision. 6 virtue of this NIP matter being resolved by MR. SCAROLA: And I gather it will tr. 2 the trial judge or by a jury is applicable insufficient to say that the motion is 0 in that Crime Victims' Rights Act case would denied for the reasons cited in the recor-I. 9 not be the end of it. In fact, it would be 7211I COURT: Yeah. One of our now 'o shocking to me that an appeal would not be lo federal court judges was criticized by the '1 taken -- no matter whether it was decided by 22 Fourth District Court of Appeal for doing '2 a judge or jury, or a combination thereof -- 12 just that, so we have to -- '2 that one side or the other would not appeal 23 MR. SCAROLA: We wi a detailed :4 the issue. So that would prolong it even 24 order, Your Honor. M take '5 further. IS transcript. \:6 So the Court has taken into account all ii 7IIR COURT The 0 SO I guess it's .7 of the issues and all of the matters in 1/ back to the s balancing and trying t0 maintain the playing is MR. INK: turn. '1 field in as level a manner as the Court Can. It 7Ne T: MI for waiting again. 20 However, there are going CO be, again, 20 i .. Sate that. Again, T apologias for Consequences for the actions taken. And by 21 • Ou off mid-thought. :2 taking the offensive, this takes us out of 22 the record. 'I the example that the Court presented 2 IA discussion was held off the record.) 22 Drought a claim against Mr. Epstein that had Mr. Link. \:4 earlier, and that is, if Mr. had 4 Milit COURT: Back on the record, Please. ?SI 136 • 2 a relationship to the claims brou Mr. on behalf of his c en 2 Mr. Epstein -- and I gave ex le f 7NR COURT: And don't be reluctant to 4 defamation -- something ha reintroduce me to where we were. 2 some type of tort Oat -- i e u d then see MR. LINK: I was going to start over. 6 issues that would inter h the Lev., Judge, and make you listen to me twice. 2 playing field t r. Goldberger and tl . MAR COURT: that's Okay. ) Other o a Ions. a Saying, Judge, was what I believe is 1 2 MR. LINK: what we were talking about before the break -- 8 Court has emphia. , th today and on 4 MR. LINK: Before the break, what I was o ut tie not the Case here. 20 important and might help us all understand In ose the playing field to which 11 where we are going and it Is this. I harp '2 found himself. I'm not here tO 22 looked at this case maybe too simply, You' • e, praise or otherwise comment on 13 Honor. - 5 that choice was made, and once there was no 12 with Jeffrey Rpstein's phone records? :6 application for stay at any of those 24 MR. LINK: It's in conjunction with -2 critical junctures outlined in the 27 Mr. Searola's confusion and Your Honor's - 2 denies the stay for the reasons that it 29 prove the truth or falsity of the :o stated in the record. 20 allegations of the complaint. C choice, other than to say that once 24 THR COURT: le this in conjunction now \:a memorandum, then the court, as a result, la statement that he was going to be allowed to 2: All right, again, thank you 21 What I said to the Court was that we 22 Mr. Goldberger. You are free to go if you 22 understand that you have said that. But we 23 wish. Good luck on all the matters that 23 don't believe that's what the law is. And 24 you're dealing with. 24 you asked me to explain why, so that's where 22 Yr. Scarola, again. I would ask that 23 1 was headed. THE COURT: Sounds good. 2 YR. LINK: Maybe I was looking at IL tn a too narrow of fashion, because of -- when I I read that Florida Supreme Court case that we spent the morning on, I read it to say 6 you look at when the complaint was filed 7 that day. And you look at all of this 8 information -- by the way, when I mean you, 9 I mean you, Your Honor, as a judicial determination -- unless there is a question of fact -- and this is what you have to ask :2 yourself. You have to ask yourself two 3 things. '4 One, is this information sufficient to '2 a reasonable person -- St's an objective :6 standard -- to a reasonable person that they would initiate the civil lawsuit? There's a '8 subjective component to it, though, which IS '2 this: that the person who is actually making the decision Cannot know that what they are looking at IS false. 22 So there's en objective component, 23 which is, is this enough for a reasonable '4 person. Subjective component is the person 25 making the decision to initiate the civil 5 6 2 :6 That was importer: questions that Mr. Gust there's bit of Plaintiff's -- C and us, asked because agreement between laintiff's counsel ieve Mr. Epstein ans t he didn't answer then all, are going to find a couple going to say, I think that was But he answered a lot of them, and ve 9 to 13 pages of testimony and two affidavits explaining essentially whet it was he looked at that gave him comfort to bring the suit. \:8 :9 20 21 .22 23 25 What we have focused on since then - since our involvement in the case starting on the 29th -- is this -- this is what Mr. ' counsel sent us last time - put on the board last time. And this is where the disconnect is for me. And here it is. Lack of probable cause as to either or both two false claims -- not just civil h proceeding, do they have a good that what they're reading or looking at, connecting the false. Here is the first one. Brad fabricated the three claims against him. How, we looked at the complaint -- and I have heard you say that we are accountable for the allegations of the complaint. That allegation is not in the complaint. You looked at it with me and you saw the word that said the claims were weak. 10 The words fabricated tie into 21 Rothstein, not . Put that aside for 12 23 14 13 ti 17 IS It a minute and let's assume, Y Honor, that this is the statement in plaint. To there a lack of prob use a 20-pau. complaint with 79 elle one if Mr. can denonstrete that a nation to be unt tion. Is that enough f probsb?e Cause? net if we - what it h rove that 75 of the 20 a one were not false? 21 jury instructions and the Can law 22 egos let you parse through a complaint say. uh-huh. I found this sentence that don't think you can prove, or I found a statement that think is 'else. therefor: 7 • I harken back -- and I hate to say It. You've made it clear: We are not trying defamation. But that is a defamation catr, because if I make 100 statements and 99 of them are accurate but one is false, guess what? You have a legitionte claim. for defamation. 10 11 12 23 24 THE COURT: At the same again. I'm not going to suggest to you that there' always going to be a bright-line Separating detention claims versus claims of malicious prosecution. They could often be somewhat factually analogous. 15 15 27 28 39 20 21 22 23 However, this all goes to the global decision, the global finding by the court. by the jury, whomever, of weighing that intonation that Mr. Epstein had at the time he filed suit, and arguably through the continuation of that claim. And just like anything else, when we instruct the jury. the jury can make a decision on all or par' of the evidence. 24 23 They have the wherewithal through instruction to accept, reject or to do u- you don't have probable cause. they wish with respect to opinions of 2 experts. They judge the credibility and thus they Infer and draw reasonable 4 inferences from the evidence as to what the witnesses say. 6 Same type of analysis here in the sense 2 that, if it's the Court's responsibility, 8 the jury's responsibility. They can find -- 9 the Court can find overriding facts that may be relevant to ultimately the Court's analysis while rejecting or accepting other :2 facts that ccae up with regard to the Court's analysis. \:4 So in a vacuum, we are getting into a '5 little bit far afield of what I would like :6 to get back to, and that is, these 2 individual evidentiary issues but you know, I don't know where \*In you want to go on this. Right now it is not before the :0 Court. Y.R. LINK: It is in a sense, If I can, 22 Judge, which is this. This CiSO has to be :3 tried differently, and the evidence will be 24 different. 25 If. for example -- and this is net talking about whose burden of pr Mr. Scarola said it's his bur he's going to try to prove 4 specific allegations in 5 untrue. That's what I 6 going to do. is. If he does 8 accomplish? 2 What th 0 shoal c, what does that at I mean by that. Its us is that the jury the decision about disputed at yre relied on by the person that '2 the Proceeding -- disputed facts. \:3 ey are not supposed to look at the tents and determine if it's true or false. They are supposed to decide :6 if there's -- we say we relied on this fact, -2 they said we didn't rely on this fact. \:8 or -- or if we say we relied on a fact, and '9 Mr. Scarola takes the position that you 20 didn't have a good faith basis to rely on 2: that fact because, then that would be a jury 22 decision about whether we relied on the 73 facts. 74 You would then decide, once the jury 25 determined we either relied on it or not, 10 11 But how do we try this case? Mere is a sentence that you pointed out to me when said, Show me where -- it doesn't say fabricated. You said. Well it says weak. It says weak. 12 13 34 15 to Well, how do we try bef the jury is that a contested fact wh cases were weak? Oo I have to c espe to give an opinion on the vale the cases at the time? And wee cosy. d what? 35 le 20 WIN don know what you're asking w t0 d0 r g t now. All I'm Sayinu is ee all Ou suggest to you is they burden of proof when it comes to in the malicious prosecution core. LINK: Yes, sir. 10 11 12 But, On the other side of the Coin. I indicated 16St week, that doesn't - again, in my respectful view of the law - end the analysis. Because it the same ti-... 13 as I pointed to the other day. Mr. 24 has the opportunity to dispel those obi:T.- 15 by Mr. Epstein. whether there was probable cause. And you will look at IS facts -- so if there are 14 that are still good and one goes away, you will make that decision. If five of them go away and there's ten left or four left, you will make the decision. THE COURT: VItimatelY, i agree with that largely it's going to be either the Court's or the jury's determination as to epatein.s subjective position at the tire he filed the suit and, according to the law, continued the prosecution of this case. Now, how you go about that, that's not for me to say. But I agree with you to th.. extent that there le a subjective element that relates to Epstein's decision-making to file a suit. 14 Now. that's how the two sides resolve 22 the tension, and ultimately a determination 28 is made by the trier of fact. 19 MR. LINK: If there's a disputed fact. 20 Again, that's sort of my struggle. And 21 maybe it's Mr. Scarola's struggle, which is 22 this. If this is the disputed fact, they 23 say there should have been an allegation 24 that the litigation team, which included 25 Mr. , knew or should have known the. 1 the three-filed cases were weak. Let's just\ 2 look at that statement. 3 They have the burden of proof and they\ 4 come forward -- and I guess Mr. [REDACTED] gets\ 5 on the stand and he says, Jury, these cases\ 6 were strong. They paid \$5.2 million -- 7 MR. SCAROLA: \$5.5 million. 8 MR. LINK: -- \$5.5 million to settle\ 9 them. I am now going to come forward and\ 10 put on an expert -- I am going to put\ 11 someone on to say that's a small number for\ 12 these cases. These cases are weak, because,\ 13 look, L.M. worked at a strip club. She an\ 14 admitted prostitute, call girl. All of\ 15 these things come into factoring. 16 What I'm asking, Judge, is if we are\ 17 trying a probable cause/malicious\ 18 prosecution case, then I would suggest to\ 19 you that none of the specific allegations\ 20 can lead to a conclusion of probable cause\ 21 or not. 22 The overall flavor of the case, the\ 23 overall complaint, when fairly read,\ 24 absolutely comes into consideration. It\ 25 does. Was there a reasonable basis to go 1 forward with this lawsuit? But\ 2 cherrypicking a sentence or two in he\ 3 complaint to prove it's falsify doesn't help\ 4 you or the jury determine probable cause. 5 THE COURT: Again, I don't know how we\ 6 found ourselves here. I just want to get\ 7 back to the evidence. Again, I can't be\ 8 making advisory opinions, orders, whatever\ 9 the case might be. 10 I want to get back to the individual\ 11 evidence provisions. 12 MR. LINK: Your Honor, I thank you for\ 13 allowing me to finish. I appreciate it. 14 THE COURT: We are back on the phone\ 15 records. 16 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, yes. I\ 17 think we are on number ten, my client's\ 18 phone records. I believe Your Honor has -- 19 THE COURT: Yes. You gave those to me. 20 MS. ROCKENBACH: I did indicate that\ 21 they have nothing to do with what my client\ 22 knew, what information he relied upon when\ 23 he instituted the original proceeding. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Scarola, your position\ 25 on the phone records, please. 1 MR. SCAROLA: The same as my position\ 2 with regard to these other exhibits. I\ 3 don't know what Mr. Epstein is going to\ 4 attempt to demonstrate with regard to these\ 5 underlying claims. 6 If he is attempting to prove that they\ 7 were fabricated, if he is defending against\ 8 the assertion that these were well-founded,\ 9 valuable claims, then the phone records may\ 10 very well become relevant and material,\ 11 because they include the names and telephone\ 12 numbers of vast numbers of juveniles who\ 13 were being sexually abused on a daily basis\ 14 multiple times a day. 15 They include the names and telephone\ 16 numbers of other witnesses to that abuse,\ 17 which form the basis for Mr. [REDACTED] seeking\ 18 to take their depositions, because\ 19 Mr. Epstein -- in the underlying cases, as\ 20 he has in this case, asserted the Fifth\ 21 Amendment privilege -- was not responding to\ 22 questions. And so we needed to rely upon\ 23 the testimony of third parties in order to\ 24 establish the claims. The telephone records\ 25 were part of the basis for identifying the 1 third parties who we sought to take\ 2 discovery from. 3 So again, I really think that -- I\ 4 haven't offered these. I don't know if I'm\ 5 going to offer them. I won't talk about\ 6 them unless and until I believe that a\ 7 reasonable basis exists for me to do that,\ 8 and then I will address that outside the\ 9 presence of the jury. 10 I don't know what else I can say with\ 11 regard to this and all these other matters.\ 12 We are going through this, and I'm going to\ 13 say the same thing over again. 14 So, for purposes of brevity, I will\ 15 tell Your Honor that for future reference, I\ 16 will simply say same argument. And now you\ 17 know what it is I am adopting as the same\ 18 argument. 19 THE COURT: I rarely see you\ 20 frustrated. I'm glad you're human like the\ 21 rest of us. 22 MR. SCAROLA: I clearly am, Your Honor.\ 23 And I'm sorry there's frustration coming\ 24 through in my voice, but there is\ 25 frustration in my heart and in my mind. THE COURT: Not a problem. 2 It is the same ruling. Again, if the 3 issue is one of reasonable discovery and 4 why -- and if Mr. Epstein is going to cl. that somehow Mr. S was oft on a 6 goose chase, then clearly the fact that he 7 was seeking to discover these phone records 8 and the purpose for the discovery would be 9 appropriate. However, at this juncture, as an exhibit that is the guts of the phone :2 records, as a matter of relevancy, as a :1 matter of privacy -- and I don't see :4 anything in here with names -- they are just '5 numbers. \:6 MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct. That's correct. THE COO,: SO I'm going Cornelia the '9 same ruling es I did on number nine. 70 XS. ROCKHNRACK: Thank you, Your Honor. The same argument for phone :2 records, which 1 can bring to the bench. They do not have names. They have numbers. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Scarola has indicated 25 that would be the same Objection. It would 3 be the same ruling. (cc Jail visitation logs. S a lieri c same ruling. 4 Jeffrey Hpstei n's tt f . Let's speak about that 6 MS. ROCKMNBACK: Y or, this would also implicate probation file would trigger part of a dente code that Mr. SC& refer earlier, which was '0 90.4 12 His probation file is akin to logs or any aspect of the \:2 Irma action, which we are not trying in :3 se. Similar fact evidence of other s, wrongs or acts are inadmissible when the evidence is solely to prove bad :6 character and propensity. And that's 90.404(2). Mr. Scarola keeps referring to the :8 second subsection of that evidence code, :9 20 which is subsection B. And it says in a criminal case in which a defendant is 71 72 charged with a crime involving child molestation, then this evidence becomes 24 relevant. 25 Your Honor did actually already make a 1 ruling -- or at least discussed that code section in relation to the federal code. which isn't applicable. 10 parading them around the jury to tell the 11 jury about what probable cause may have 12 13 existed in these affidavits, absolutely prejudice my would nd be would 34 not receive a fair t tion. 15 TeX COURT: Is anything specific, ti 17 Mr. Scarola, t nk of that Is would be Court ne file that the bout now? It MA. Nothing Your Honor needs 20 about w. Same argument. 21 22 COOKY: Okay. Same argument. Same Again, this would be akin -- to 2 an analogy -- to in a personal injury 2 How, if there were certain things in the employment file that would relevant, for 10 11 ruling. I am sustaining the objection. MS. ROCERHEACH: Thank you. Your Honor. 12 Same argument for number IS, the 23 victims' statements to the FBI. 14 THR COURT: He are actually on 14. 15 16 XS. ROCKEHBACHt All probable cause affidavits. Yes. I indicated that that 37 would be the save argument, because it 18 relates to criminal investigation. 19 THE COURT: Same argument? 20 21 MA. SCABOLA: I would only point out. Your goner, that clearly to the extent eh:, 22 had that sworn testimony 23 when he initiated both his civil lawsuit -- 24 23 his civil lawsuits, and when he relied upon that in pursuing discovery, it's obviously This is not a molestation case. The probable cause affidavits that related to the criminal investigation are absolutely irrelevant to this malicious prosecution case. And if there was any remote relevant probative value to introducing them and Otten listing the plaintiff's employment file. And that would carry with it the Same general objection. example, there may be something fn an employment file that shows a prenexistinq injury of some sort, then that would be - that may mall be relevant. But simply Stating probation file without any specifics would be the same 2 3 relevant and material, depending upon what Mr. Epstein attempts to say, so it is tb' same argument. 4 THE COURT: I am going to defer on i number 14. t think that that is more those Comment, in particular -- on the 6 specific. I think it is potentially proprietary or reasonableness of 7 critical to the analysis as It relate: 2, conduct, and whether Jeffrey 1 Mr. Scerola. KR. SCAROLAk Yes. Your Honor, I just want to supplement my argument in this respect. He have been focusing on -- in 1 the strength of the cases that are involved. Epstein woo in a position to consider what !Cl regarding his position. Rut I also 10 conclusion that Mr. was a knowing understand Mr. Scarola's argument regarding II participate in a Pon:i scheme and :4 not going to be Mr. Epstein's objective III articulate what the ble se standard .5 position that needs to be heard. IS is. And I think the ybe I am in :6 All right. Next is number 15. 14 agreement wit oppo ounsel, but I want '1 "Victims' statements to the RBI related t0 11 to be mu- I he stated it in what I 9 I understand Mr. Link's argument ) was happening as contributing to a .2 the fact that somehow they have to prove 17 fabricating claim: against m. .3 their probable cause case. And it's just I) I think it's impo hat we .s the criminal Investigation of Jeffrey is consider to be n appropriate fashion. '9 kinstein... it The ue a, would an objectively 20 MS. ROCRRRHACII: Your Honor, I have a 20 le and caution person -- that's the COPY Of these if the Court would like to 2t part of the formula -- knowing :2 review them. They were produced by 22 wha ffrey Epstein knew -- that's the \:3 Mr. Scarols. They are approximately six 7 a jective portion of formula -- have :4 pages. But they are absolutely irrelevant, 4 robable cause to believe that 75 inflammatory. Prejudicial for 2, Y Client in fabricated the claims against • this action. Victims' statements they 1 Jeffrey Epstein and was a knowing 2 relate to the criminal case. 2 participant in a massive POriii scheme. 3 THE CO0RT: Off the d. So there is both en objective and a 4 12, discussion was of h °cord.) subjective cosponent. s MS. ROCKENHACH: ur Hon r i quickly And when we talk about things like 6 looked at the names on articular phone records and address book and a to E.Y., L.M., J who were b EPStein knew about the existence of those 3 reprove by Mr. aria. TOT that reason il PhOn• records. Hs know about the 'Giros) :3 t • 1 victims' state\* and they d0 not relate appointment books and airplane logS, Jeffrey '0 they er t relevant. 20 books. He knew about the appointment book) now is Court has already sold you 21 and the airplane logs showing that children :2 going to allow or constructively as were being transported on those jet planes. of the sexual abuse/assault claims. 23 lie knew what was happening to those children that is what this will be pointing to. II on those jet planes. Re knew some 40 5 THE COURT: Okay. I have read them. 25 children had reported virtually identical :6 It IS the same argument, same ruling. that 26 crimes to law enforcement. :2 is, that if it comes to a point where there 22 SO those are all things that he know. :9 Mr. acted in manner that was rash, 29 to bring other children, too. He knew he 20 that was in a wanner that was without 20 paid the three victims that are named in 2: forethought, that he did not properly 21 1111111\* complaints not only \$200 74 brought on behalf of the three young women, 24 to his. And he specified what it was he 25 then again we will revisit. 25 wanted and what would gather a premium an., \:s is a contention by Mr. Epstein that is He knew that he was paying children a bounty 12 discover those issues that are -- that would 22 per sexual massage, but also paid them 2 or 13 form the basis of the claims that were 23 \$300 for each other child that they brought 2 2 4 what wouldn't gather a premium.. So when we talk about things like. ill he know these were strong claims independent of the parade of horrible, that he lists from seven down now to where we are -- and that's number IS -- is that while it is absolutely conceivable that this intonation -- some of this information may s there about these young girls -- be relevant, what I'm trying to deal with 6 incidentally, the vast majority of which here and distinguish is a discussion about 7 things, if not all of them, occurred aft, what Mr. Epstein may or may not have Snow, S he abused these children. and the actual introduction of the record-, 9 As the sworn deposition of G.M. which I don't believe have any real .0 indicates, she was -- and I think I have 20 probative value themselves. That's a already referenced this in prior argument to 21 distinction. .7 the Court. She was a middle school student 22 I don't want a jury get g bound up in '3 doing well. She was doing well 21 trying to locate six pho rs that say :a academically. She was participating in 14 be similar, or six ti ind dual phone .5 extracurricular activities. IS entry is listed, and a atically assume .6 While she has a difficult home life, it le that it may hew in o do in .7 had not impacted upon her personal conduct 27 particular h hese three young 5 in any way that brought her in contact the is ladies t t Mr arcs represented. 20 resulted in her engaging in the kind of 20 0 isitation logs. All of those :2 that she hike alleged to have been involved 22 wit a competing claims of knowledge, :2 In, which ell occurred after Jeffrey Epstein 2 t ngth or weaknesses of the cases -- all '9 criminal law or in any way whatsoever that It The t g with the probation file conduct, like stripping, or anything else 21 Ilile they may have something to dO :4 had abused her. 4 f which, again, despite my diSag replant, at 7s So these are things that Epstein knew, least in some regard with Mr. Link -- and • I appreciate the Court's concern I those things being relevant to discuss as 2 this focused on the claims of W., 7 far as what Mr. had to sustain hi: 9 Jane Doe. But that is foeu f ms claims. the actual documents themselves, 4 on L.M., G.M. and Jane T s hat unless there's an issue as to they don't s Epstein knew about the trengt f their exist, or there never were any phone 6 claims. records, or there never was a flight log. 7 ThiS is no Ingle, isolated that's a different story. 9 victim. Se ar t three isolated s what Your Honor said. I am in absolute o victi were abused on a single 10 agreement. I am not even going to offer • a . \*I was part of an extraordinary 11 them unless they fit that pattern. n incident. This a single, isolate) 4 MA. SCAROLA: I take Lieu° with none of -2 ttern •f abuse. 12 They have been listed here because we l d that's why I as suggesting too, 23 are obliged to list them. all exhibits that r Honor, that I simply need to adopt the 14 way reasonably become relevant and material. \:5 same argument. I'm not going to offer any 15 THE COURT: Fair enough. And I think :6 of this evidence unless and until I satisfy 16 that's the value of the discussion that we - 7 the Court that it's relevant and material. 27 are having here today, that we can narrow \:8 And that's all I can say. 28 some of issues -- narrow the intent of what \:9 THE COURT: In this particular victim 29 these documents are sought for reasons -- 20 statement dated 5/30/2000, it's from a Shana 20 for the reasons why they're sought to be 7: L.R., who I don't believe has anything to do 21 potentially introduced. 72 with this particular case -- these three 22 Again, I don't think it's -- I think 7. cases, that I'm aware of. 23 it's a good exercise. So let's go ahead and .74 And the point I'm trying to make as it 24 proceed further. 25 relates to these exhibits that are listed 25 MS. ROCKKHHACR: Your Honor, number 16 is the video of the search warrant of -5 2 client's home -- while being executed, tho Jeffrey Epstein's assets.' accounts and any/all records related CO 3 search. I don't have the video, but I MS. ROCKEIMACH: That was not produced, 4 presume by that -- it wasn't produced, but I along with this passport. Nineteen and 20 5 presume by that description, it is the some have not been produced. But I presume that 6 ruling. this somehow relates to the punitive 7 THE COURT: The same ruling as in ' damages. S the application for the search warrant - MR. SCAROLA: It does. 9 sustained. MS. ROCKKHBACH: And there was a '0 MR. SCAROLA: Let me just point out to 10 stipulation by my client in discovery -- I '1 Your Honor that the reason why that's listed 31 think it was discovery answers -- about net :2 :3 is because the victims, including these three, give detailed descriptions of where :4 they were in the house and what the interior 14 Mr. Scare'. -- and u ndab so -- 1, '5 looked like. And all of that is 13 not going to accept th stipulation. 32 worth that was in excess 21 TIE COURT: Me talk that. \:6 corroborated by the search warrant video. 16 So eventu ly, re a going to have -7 THE COOKY: Again, It's with the 17 to be furt d ssi . I presume that'- :5 proviso and caveat that I will remexamlna 38 part Of t sett to Compel on Thursday. '9 each of these exhibits, If need be, when the 19 MS. Ru : Yes. your Honor. :0 Context is pointed out. But for now, the 20 SCAROLA: ft arises in the context same ruling is being issued. 21 . fth Amendment assertion to requests limos inferences from those requests. \:2 MN. ROCKEWHACH: Number IO -- actually, 22 for scion and our being able to draw 21 17. It's identified on the exhibit list by :4 Mr. as the application for a search It has to do with response' to :5 warrant of my client's home. And it's questions during the course of deposition. 2\\4 • possible that by mistake Mr. Scar 1 And, yes, there's a motion to compel, 2 office produced a different do 3 because what was produced i hi assertion with regard to some aspects of 5 l was an order sealing of it 0 application for search arrant a d related 6 search warrant and inve n return. And by the Fifth Amendment. That would be a 7 attached CO the re the subpoenas CO the waiver with regard to anything that was 8 Custodian of rec bellSOuth, T-MOblie 2 disclosed to third parties. 9 and Gin r. So looks like phone ii Max return\*, saes thing. Waiver. '0 roc\* • 10 THE COURT: Deeds. 2 because we believe that the Fifth Amendment what have been requested -- for example, disclosures to banks -- would not be Covered LA: Sounds like the wrong if MR. SCAROLA: Deeds, airplane \:2 hibit 12 registrations. \:1 .. ROCKEHBACE: Sounds like the wrong 13 THE COURT: That's fine. Me will 041H, :5 same basis that the application for the 12 appropriate time. :6 search warrant of Mr. Epstein's home would 26 Twenty is Mr. Epstein's passport. :7 not be relevant, would be prejudicial -- 27 Again, I think that has to do somewhat with 'bit. but we would object to -- on the 24 them up. If it's necessary, at the \:a THE COURT: I have already indicated 28 the Issues we discussed as to the flight \:9 the sass as to number 17. 29 logs. 20 MS. ROCKMENCH: Eighteen, Your Honor, 20 Driver's license. I don't know what 7: is the complaint. 22 that might be relevant to. 22 THE COURT: That, again, is typically a 22 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. 73 matter of judicial notice, so we will deal 23 THE COURT: Same ruling. I will 74 with it, if we need to, at a later time. 24 sustain the objection at this time. >5 'All records of homes, properties, bank 23 List of corporations owned by Mr. Epstein. t presume that has to do with 1 are deterring, Your Honor, until you hear testimony. And it sounds like the door would be that my client didn't know the sq, of the three clients of Kr. THE COVET: At this point, yes. number 19 and the punitive damage claim. THE COURT: Me will deal with that at a XS. POCK/MACH: Twenty-three through 26 have not been produced. And I presume -- '2 honestly, they are vague. And I can't see 12 during the criminal investig en. "/ what relevance these vague yearbooks are 13 We are not in the c MS. ROCKKHBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. Humber 28 is similar to what you ruled upon the last hearing, which was number 7. messages taken from Mr. 1g/stein's home. '0 yearbooks would implicate -- I don't know 10 This is notepads found in Mr. Epstein's home '1 who they would implicate, actually. Quite 22 and/or doing trash pulls outside of his home 6 going to have in the malicious prosecution 34 investigation. We ar tryin that case. \*6 THE COURT: Same argument. 14 client's home I irr- vs, prejudicial and M.R. SCAROLA: These reflect the I/ should not 1 oduc s appearance Of the victims' at the time that se THE RI: you have any of those' '9 Mr. Epstein was abusing them, Your Honor, to It Have you iv copies? :0 the extent there might be any argument that 20 ROCKEIDIACH: T did. yes, 28, 1 :2 defense as a setter of law, but it might be 22 ler. hibit, SO -- and you will see '3 argued in litigation if hewers to try to 2 th -- : 4 Contend -- he ray try to contend that his 4 May i approach, Your Honor? he was unaware. And that Obviously IS not a 21 mpling. I think it was a very THE COVET: Sure. Okay, again, I have 168 • therefore less culpable. And we show 1 reviewed these materials. I am going to 2 pictures of these victims from h 2 wake the same finding I made earlier, the 3 4 s 6 7 jury could draw their owr, lu to whether this wee inadve It is not a defen as a er of law. They were either of age of age. And he was either a fically requesting 2 child 0 y rate, they COUld il be discussed. '0 Clea a relevance in that regard. And 20 The actual documentation themselves, '2 - impact upon the issues as to preparedness, knowledge -- as far as Kr. is concerned -- his diligence as to discovery. if those are called into question, then these may be discussed. The fact that he 8 children or not I tally requesting a had these materials probably will be able to m offering them at this point. 11 though. /main. I think would be excessive are there In the event this becomes 12 and would be getting into other matters that . 33 would not be germane to the three young THE COURT: I feel comfortable 24 women who were involved here. deferring on 23 through 26. Twenty-seven is 15 So in essence, it's sustained in parr. '6 the same. 16 overruled in part. '2 XS. ROCKLNSACK: A4 earlier -- es 14, 17 Ms. ROCKKIMACH: Haber 29 is the Palm 'S and 15. le Beach State Attorney's Criminal file. It'- ', THE COURT: The same as actually -- 19 over 2,000 pages. I have a sampling for 72 MS. ROCKENBACH: Same ruling for 27, 22 is, if it gets to the issue like we 73 which is sustained? 23 discussed -- I'm going to repeat myself -- 71 THE COURT: Yes. 24 then the fact that's it's a 2,000-c: 25 MS. kOCKENIMACH: And 23 through 26, you 23 criminal investigation file that Yr. 20 PS. MICKEHBACH: Seventeen. 20 Your Honor to look at if you're interested. 71 THE COURT: So the same ruling. 21 THE COURT: No. Same ruling. And that \:6 ago the compilation of the file 2 had knowledge and the of the file -- even if he didn't have s to it, which would be likely -- then that would be relevant, as I said. to Mr. \:7 :8 :9 70 01 02 73 Also, I agree with Mr. Scarola that certainly the sheer amount of the file would have been known to Mr. Epstein, at least should have been known by Mr. Epstein. Md that say be something you may or may not ask him. But that should have been known to him at time he filed the lawsuit. had SOme access to formulate his position as 2 to the legitimacy of these three claims, if those are called into question -- because 4 there are that busy equivocation regarding the legitimacy of those claims -- then 6 again, it may come into play. 7 The fact that there was a criminal file 8 prepared -- no surprise to anyone -- won': be a aurprise to the Jury. But the individual pages therein would have to be '1 further discussed at a later time. \:2 Mr. Scarola. \:2 MA. SCAROLA: Your Honor, this is one :4 of the circumstances where the distinction '5 that I referenced before probably becomes very clear. That is, during the course of e criminal prosecution, these criminal files probably would not have been available to Be may have had the same :0 Information from other sources. RUt they obviously were entirely available to Jeffrey Epstein. 72 So these would have a significant 74 impact on what Mr. Epstein knew in order to make a determination OS co whet a r44e0nably 4 objective person could or could upon in forming probable cause THE COURT: Again, I'm d 6 3 :0 with the sanitizing - attempting to sanitize ability, and to carve o between the thr the globalmy~ investg%ht think it here. 0 t of our distinguish alma that are brought is that was done. Md rtinent to the analysis 20 Rut again, the global ruling is the individual entries, unless there's something that is brought to my attention, would not be subject to admission. Rut the likelihood that the significance, if you will, of the file, the volume of a file would be particularly important as to Mr. Epstein': knowledge prior to filing the suit. 21 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor. I'm sure It 23 24 23 24 Ms. misrepresent any fact to could we know the bas that Mr. Epstein did the crisinal C Rockenbach wouldn't into natty rt, but aiming eve discovery in 27 28 It 20 27 22 MS. Client w wrong, bu don't think that my access -8 I could be ot imagine my client would ess to the Palm Reach County State a criminal file. I'm not sure how t would get his hands on the State rney's file. 74 MS. WICKEIMACE: It was not, Your 25 Honor. I have been informed it was not. THE COVET: Agein, we will have to figure that out as we go along. MR. SCAROLA: Well. I'm sure it's a reflection of Ms. Rockenbach not doing 10 11 12 So if it's simply a matter of XS. Rockenbach not being familiar with that procedure, I understand that. Out I want the \*\*Cord reflect there's no basis in the record to Suggest that Jeffrey Epstein old not have all of the discovery to which he was entitled in the criminal case. criminal practice. But those of us who have engaged in crisinal practice know that all evidence in the hands of the State Attorney is require to be turned over to the defense in the context of a criminal prosecution. 13 THE COURT: I think it's more a matt., 24 of timing that I am concerned with. And 15 that is. at the time he filed the suit 14 versus whenever that information may have 27 been turned over could be very distinct. 28 MR. SCAROLA: He was well into the 19 defense of his criminal prosecution at the 20 time. 21 THE COURT: By December of 2009? 22 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 23 MS. ROCKKHOACM: I do believe, Your 24 Honor, though, that we are getting very f:- 23 astray from probable cause -- which I appreciate Mr. Scarola's assistance with the 2 knowledge of the criminal -- because I have 2 not practiced -- I did do some appellate 4 criminal work when I clerked at the Fourth District Court of Appeals, but that was a 6 lifetime ago. 7 Hut the probable cause issue is not whether or not my client knew about the 9 State Attorney's file or the 2,000 documents. It is whether my client had probable cause to institute the original proceeding based on a reasonable belief that Mr. participated or had connection '4 to Mr. Rothatein's Penal scam. And that's the defamation by way of the Jury :6 instruction for probable cause, which is 406.4. .3 So I'm not going anywhere outside of the Florida Supreme Court jury instruction :0 definition and the case law. But all of theSe exhibits that we 22 are -- and the Court is incredibly patient :3 with us going through -- relate to the 74 criminal action and the criminal -- we are 25 now on the Palm Beach County State 4 Attorney's criminal file. So I g whether my client had it or no is irrelevant. It is an issue v trying in this case, an ar o rying he criminal action. 6 0 788 COURT: 1 unde But it gets back to his kn0 his constructive ramifica4ns or his accountability, (Woof the ential ramifications that toultiarise when he filed this lawsuit lace. And those are all \*2 as far as this Court is concerned, :3 am shown something otherwise by way the case law. \:5 So let's move on. 1 would rather go :6 forward -- just to give you my thoughts on -7 the subject. \:8 Again, t am always inviting anyone to :9 bring cases to my attention that may serve 20 to change my mind, or at least influence the 7: decisions that I am going to make. .72 MS. ROCKEMBACE: Than you, Your Honor. 23 It seemed Your Honor was sustaining, but 1 24 want to make sure 1 understand. 25 THE COVRT: 1 have already explained 10 11 12 11 This is not irrelevant under 401, it' prejudicial under 403. and it also implicates the conviction of rtain crime, of impeachment under 90. 24 15 24 29 It We discussed thi Youi honor at prior hearing on Nov 29th about a procedure to d0 a witness on the eta -ver been convicted of a eel involving dishonesty. If they s o.jhen you can absolutely use 20 a to impeach their lying under oath. 21 COURT: Remember we had that 22 die On between credibility and a factual 2 is e. that being relevancy, whether or not \\ 4 omething tends to prove or disprove a material fact. That's how we distinguished it. tt is in the record. MS. ROCKHIlBACH, Hest are the document: related to Mr. Epstein's conviction. They weren't produced. I don't know what precise documents they were, but I really don't think it matters, because it relates to thr criminal conviction and his plea colloquy that was heard before -- I believe it was Judge Debbie Pucillo on June 30, 2008. 10 Mr. Scarola. MR. SCAROLA: I only wanted to point out to Your Honor that a comment was made by Mr. Goldberger earlier today that's relevant to this discussion, and that is, he said that Jeffrey Epstein did not plead guilty to crimes involving these three victim.. 1 don't believe that that is supported by t7 . record. 11 12 13 24 15 is I think what the record reflects -- and Your Honor has a Copy Of the Conviction, so you might be able to correct me if I'm wrong, because it's been a while since I saw them. But I don't think that there is a victim named, strangely, in those pleas. 22 18 19 20 23 22 In fact, when Mr. Epstein vas asked who did he plead guilty to prostituting or soliciting for prostitution, his response was, I don't remember. I don't know who it was that I pled guilty to soliciting for prostitution. 23 24 23 THE COURT: For reasons that may have to do with the minority status of the victims, it states -- has Mr. Epstein's it the last time. name, guilty plea checked off by way of an 2 X. two case numbers. Charge: felony the minor victim. It's AD. It is not ono 3 solicitation of prostitution count one, of Mr. ' clients. 8 third degree felony; procuring Person under During Judge Pucillo's colloquy. AD is Second, in the colloquy, it identifies 5 10 for prostitution, second degree felony. the minor that relates to that one count. 6 It goes on by indicating the Rut there is nothing in the record there 7 presentence investigation. PSI was not that suggests child molestation or any pin 8 required or waived. The sentencing; credit to child molestation. 9 for time served; other comments or TAX COVRT: It depends how you look at '0 conditions, including the registration and le it. When someone is pleading guilty and is • designation as a sexual offender; 11 convicted of procuring a person under 18 for '2 presentation of DNA sample, as is required 32 prostitution, I am not carts that's not a '3 in these types of pleas. And no 23 form of child soleststio again, I a, :4 unsupervised context with minors, et cetera. 34 not here to parse wor '5 YR. SCAROLA: My recollection is -- 15 She bottom line S at if St was a \*6 THE COORS: To my knowledge, leafing ti civil action di ectl e1 ed to the '7 through this, there is no specific 17 criminal pr 8 designation of the victim by mime or le understa ing is hat the Plml ". a '9 Initials. It certified y the plea would be on again, my global 20 DO fled. 20 ed into evidence. MR. SCAROLA: That is my understanding 21 because of the uncertainty, l'- 93 SO when Mr. Epstein pleads guilty and and a knowledgeable one. for that matter. 99 es well. And the criminal complaints that 22 01 o defer ruling on this particular 23 resulted in those guilty pleas had to do, 1 2 is e until really further information is :4 believe• with a long list of individuals. 4 veloped In order to rake a COgent decision S ISSY • is unable to identify who it is t pled 1 Same thing with the plea column. If it 9 guilty to molesting. I suggest r 9 doesn't have anything to do with any of the 3 that that is clearly a pr ve t at three individuals that Mr. 8 the jury can take into de i in 1 represented, the likelihood is I am going to s adjudging the strength f them ree cases, sustain the objection. 6 because he didn't say 1 one of these MR. SCAROLA: Vor whatever assistant.? 2 three individua Whim he said was, I it may be to the Court, I believe that AD is 8 don't remember w t as. And that clearly b the child who introduced N.W. to Jeffrey 3 Is a at At fr which the jury could il Epstein and was pa id for bringing her to '0 coact de, rticularly in light of all the 20 Jeffrey Epstein the first time. • t n t assertions from which 21 TRE COVET: Again, that may have '9 • ern •:Vacation can be drawn when he 12 everything to 00 with the case that was '1 to acknowledge he even knew any of 23 tried as to E.W.'s case. Again, those se three girls. 24 tangential issues were something that were \:5 Those circumstances taken together 15 of extreme concern for the Court when it '6 clearly are relevant and material in making 26 comes to this malicious prosecution clef-. '7 a determination as to the viability of these 27 and the continue concern about undue '8 three claims. 28 information, and part of the reason why I am - 3 Y.R. LINK: Your Honor, if I may. 19 going to defer, but also keeping that very 20 Mr. Scarola is dead wrong. He did not plead 20 much in the forefront of my consideration. 91 guilty to child molestation. You have just 21 that being undue inflammatory information 22 seen the plea. 22 being imparted to the trier of fact. 23 I know you have asked us not to do 23 Number 32 is, "List of properties and 74 rhetoric. That is pure rhetoric. That is 24 vehicles in Larry Visoski's, V-I-S-0-S-Y-', 25 not the plea. 23 He's one of the pilots. 1 XR. LINK: Yes, sir. 3 THE COciti: Relevancy? 4 YR. SCAROLA: HAS to do with the transfer of assets out of Jeffrey Epstein's 6 name, Your Honor. 7 And again, I don't know that that's going to become a matter that we need to 9 deal with. It's listed. My argument is what my argument was. THE COVET: Thank you. Again, that would be deferred until it needs to be -- 3 YR. LINK: Your Honor, may I interrupt 4 for one second? Do you mind? \:5 THE COURT: Pardon me? 6 XR. LINK: Do you mind if I interrupt for one second? 8 3 know we are getting passed where you told us we could be, but I thought it might :0 be helpful if T Clarify heard you say that we have been equivocating -- I don't 22 think you mean OUr teem, but I think over the years eqUivOCating, and I would like to 34 put that to rest if I can. It right help us '5 going forward if you give me two minOt es. 3 4 MR. LINK: If you don' in THE COURT: Not at 6 XR. LINK: So the is no etivocation about this. And I want these words 9 never speak in I aft like Mr. Sterols does, bu I would y to get to at least • 0 row; know we are wrapping up now anywa THE COUNT: Sure. as carefully as a, Your Honor. I can 2 :3 a at I mean. The lawsuits were initiated in 2000 was a sole practitioner. r. \:6 jail and is subject to the non-prosecution agreement. We have never taken -- we are \:a :9 :0 not taking the position -- we are not taking the position for this trial that the filing of those three lawsuits were a fabrication. 72 During that time frame, pursuant to the EPA, Mr. Epstein was not permitted to defend 73 25 the merits -- he was allowed to challenge the amount of damages they were seeking. but he was not allowed under the non-prosecution During that time period when he filed them is when Xr. Epstein was serving time in 10 31 That doesn't mean that Mr. Epstein agreed with every single thing these folk: said, or that he thought the amount they were seeking was reasonable. 32 13 15 34, But I want it to be cle that we are not intending to introdu nee that. from when he was a so r, that the three cases were toted or made up, or that the vas ricated or used as part of It All on takes ween April 9, '09, when t that we have focused 20 N Joins the Rothstein fir, and 29 eaves. agreement, essentially, to challenges liability. So there is nothing that we're saying that took place between the filing in 2008 and when he joins Mr. Rothstein's first that we are calling into question as being fabricated. 22 0 One of the things this court has 2ASSV as that I think is really important -- and 4 understand your ruling -- you and I have a little disagreement about the way we think .4I 1 10 doesn't get to come in and say words that aren't in the complaint, that they have t: point to words where it say, there was a fabrication and whO made that fabrication. 11 12 13 14 the word that you pointed to was the word weak. And were going to have a trial over whether the cases were weak or not weak to somebody's subjective level. 15 16 17 But I want to be sure that it's really clear, because all the things we've been talking about -- the criminal activity, the 18 19 arrest records, the flight logs -- all of that relates to, in my view, none of the 20 21 activity that is from April 9th, '09 backwards -- April 9, '09 backwards -- I may 22 23 have misspoken. I will clarify that in a second. 24 25 And what t mean by that is this. The cases that were filed by Mr. he h. it should go, but that happens to be almost every day in the courtroom. But you have made it really clear that we have to stanl behind the allegations of the complaint. And I'm taking Your Honor as saying that literally, that the plaintiff, too, probable cause to file them. We are not 2 saying that he didn't. We are not 3 challenging his bringing those cases, and we 4 are not going to complain about those cases. So information that led up to an arrest 6 for phone records wouldn't only come in if 7 we were saying those three cases in 2008 9 were fabricated. We're not saying that. 9 We're not saying that at all. What I'm hearing we are going to be doing in this trial is trying three :2 molestation cases. these three victims these three plaintiffs are going to get on the stand and we are going to try the \*\$ molestation case. Were they touched? Where were they touched? When were they touched? How many times were they touched? Whet did ,s they look like? What's their emotional :9 reaction to it? Have they suffered damages? 20 Have they become strippers as a result of the touching? that's what we're talking 22 about trying in this malici0us prosecution action. /HE COURT: I am not sure we have been in the same courtroom. floc's fine if you 24 25 3 4 5 6 are under that impression. Again, I am not here to a questions or to give advt.° make advisory statement do here today is tryin much as this evidence a ying to rough as to determine whether or not. least On their Owe:). it would be admiSai would be deferred: 9 jab:leaf a and grated in part: is the, o Oble I Stained in part, denied in part, art: whatever the case might :2 :3 I would like to get back to that use the few more minutes to -- \:6 :8 MR. LINK: Do you mind if I just see what I just misstated so I can fix it on the record if I need to? It will take me 10 seconds. \:9 20 71 72 73 75 scAROLA: If Mr. Link is offering a stipulation that allegations in the complaints on behalf of K.M., L.M. and Jane Doe as filed by were well-founded allegations, I will accept that stipulation, and that may help to abbreviate some of the issues that we have been facing. 12 23 14 THE COURT: Mr. Link, are you willing to stipulate that the actions brought by Mr. on behalf of the three 10 individuals that we have listed by way of 21 either initials or Jane Dee that have been at center of this cont rovers were brought in good faith, and that gations mar, well-founded? 25 311 17 19 It 20 Me. LINK: the distinction, and that's this. Y brought in good faith. Ca s the allegations are true? 1 an't s I t at, Your Honor, Me never put s the test because we 21 22 dn't represent Mr. Epstein at that think -- when you ask me would I everything that was pled was true, I an't say that. 9 MR. LINK: thank you, Your Honor. I hope my stipulation helped. 10 21 tag COURT: All right, we are up to number 40? 12 23 MS. RCCKENBACH: I think we were at 73. I wish we were at 40. 24 THR COURT: We did 32. 25 26 32 MS. ROCKENBACH: We did 32. THE COURT: I indicated that 35 is the next highlighted one. is 29 20 21 22 That again, is a matter judicial notice, and depending upon whatever evidentiary value it may have, those are just answers in affirmative defenses in the civil cases against him. 23 24 MS. ROOM:MACH: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I think we also objected to 31. 23 7:M COURT: I don't have it THE COURT: I think that's what Mr. Link has offered. MR. SCAROLA: I thought that that's what it was, but I want that -- that's an Important stipulation. there ought not to be any ambiguity. THE COURT: But you are saying Mere willing to stipulate that they were all made in good faith? MR. LINK: Yes, sir, absolutely. THE COURT: So stipulated. thank you. that Can be typed up and brought to the Court's attention, if nee rrrrr y, during the pendency of litigation. highlighted. 1 8 THE COURT: Responses to requests for in a large number of pending civil action: 5 production, requests for admission, answers and to escape liability for an even large-6 to interrogatories in this matter. And then number of potential criminal prosecution:. 7 there's a list of about 10 or so cases. while the limitation that Your Honor 9 case before you in division AG. And th:: issue for the reasons that Your Honor hat 'o case number, you can -- 10 stated, those reasons have no applicabil i tv '1 THE COURT: You're talking about AR? 31 when it comes to talking about motive and '2 MS. ECCKEHBACE: Yes. These are all 12 malice. ') '00 eases, '09 cases. I presume they are -- 21 When it comes to to ut motive :4 Your Honor, perhaps Mr. Scarola can 14 and malice, t respect sonde the jury :6 relevant to this action. 16 would take the is fi a malicious '7 Bringing in discovery from other 27 lawsuit, d he h e to gain by doing .8 lavallit8 seems t0 be creating mini- 18 that. 20 THE COURT: Well, depending upon the 20 a nom 1111111' prosecutorial :2 depending upon its relevance to the lawsuit 22 inf44lOile i decisions with '3 Chet we are dealing with here, things like :4 requests for adzisstons may be. pursuant to '5 the law, transferable to a similar case. at::::::::t:012::deev::::::f:::n:::::::1:0 He had the assistance of the University 2 tat. SCAROLA: I don't have it of Utah law professor Paul Cassell. So his 3 highlighted on mine either. motive was to escape or reduce his liability 8 Y.S. ROCKKHHACE: Those were not th\* has described applies to the probable car^ '5 tell us the relevance, but they would not be 25 needs to understand wh is that somebody .9 again within this suit. It And h d to gain was not simply nature of the discovery, end obviously 21 . with regard to three cases, but to 2\\11 rd to a large number of other pending ?C SHCASr' • Answers to interrogatories, the s ing. I spend the rest of his life in jail. 8 that are not stated un th. 1 does arise when we start talking about why 5 So what's your po tion, r Sterols? are we going to be talking about all of 6 YA. SCAROLA: Let state these other claims. 7 broadly, Your H that as hes been Your Honor is right. There are 8 acknowledged in I argument before the b epeeific admissions included within those 0 • t. d is our theory of the case that 21 on a Coordinated basis does make a very :2 ((Toy Coin singled out 12 significant difference in terms of motive. :3 he was leading a joint prosecution 22 Thank you, sir. '6 and that Brad was singled out, not only 26 up on an issue-by-Issue basis in order to '7 because of his leadership role, but because 27 determine the relevancy. :5 he faced a particular vulnerability. 28 Thirty-five, again, are the answers t '9 And what Mr. Epstein was attempting to 29 affirmative defenses in all civil cases 20 do was to extort into either 20 against him. Same ruling. T am going to 2: abandoning or compromising the interest of 21 have to take those up on an issue-by-issue 72 his clients and backing off on the 22 basis. '3 prosecution of the Crime Victims' Rights Act 23 Thirty-six. All complaints in which 74 case, which Mr. was prosecuting on a 24 Epstein was a defendant, same ruling. 1 25 pro bono basis almost independently. 25 will have to take those up on an individual 7 Those things that are stated u r e 2 So that's the relevance and materiality 3 a more concrete type of aff t th e. that we have not directly addressed yet that 2 Court, • is cl rly an issue with regard il other pleadings. Rut the mere existence of to iv intent on Jeffrey Epstein's 20 those other cases that were being prosecute) t that included a number of other 24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you as well. :5 lawyers prosecuting multiple other cases, 25 Again, 2 am going to have to take these 2 basis. In other words, that means that I'm going to defer. I that now, as well. The video footage of the walk-through 4 or publications related to Jeffrey Epstein. probably likely to closely resemble that of i XS. ROOM/MACH: Number 40 was not punitive damages, although it way be also 6 produced. Actually, Mr. scarola and I can this issue of whether or not there's going a might be sane that I agree to. that -- to any of the individuals who are at 9 MR. SCAROLA: They were produced in issue, and their memory as to whether or not '1 have a copy of every one of them. 31 net in Mr. Epstein's home, and could be en '2 MS. RCCKENBACK: Okay, so Jansen's 12 issue of credibility and coo be supported 3 The newspaper articles, online articles site inspection of Epstein's home is 7 gat together and look at articles. There to be an exception taken to -- strike '0 connection with Mr. Jansen's report. You lo they recall what, if anything, maybe in o- ', report. So then this exhibit goes to 21 by way of the video. \:4 Mr. Jansen, which I have a motion to strike 14 Again, I will to t up that •5 and preclude that is in draft form that I IS becomes an issue later :6 was working on last night. So I think then, 24 The proper les, rs ate and plane .7 perhaps, the Court can take that up in the 17 of Mr. EpSt . ain Id be taken up a context of Mr. Jansen's testimony and that is later, if it bee s an issue. '9 notion in that, Mr. Jansen is a damages It Pro c se affidavits prepared 70 expert that has testified about defamatory 20 a. Jeffrey Epstein and statements. 21 nq I made earlier regarding \:X What I started to say is. I would agree 22 r,. Cause. If the affidavit was si to some newspaper articles that try client 2 pr ared against Epstein himself, then it's 24 relied on in bringing the original 4 \*levant, unless it relates to any issues of 25 proceeding, because he has testified that he Mr. ' knowledge and his diligence. • relied on these newspaper article I and the like, relating to his preparation of 7 connected Mr. to Mr. It P his cases. 4 basis for his probable t r nate evidencing Epstein's donation to law i the proceeding. enforcement. 1 Pon4i scheme and that fo in rt, e Forty-five. Documents relating to or 6 But as to the noun newspaper XS. ROCKEHOACH: Irrelevant and 7 articles or per cats or Internet hits prejudicial, because then it reflects 9 attache t his r rt that I'm now hearing il can be purchased, and that'S just o are hi 40 -- we would absolutely object 20 inappropriate. It's not appropriate for, • , use ey are not relevant in the 21 malicious prosecution action whatnever. :2 lici0 prosecution action. 12 MCCORT: Well, the likelihood. a that Dr. Jensen d -- and I guess are s poorly. It's an insinuation that our Simian \:3 SCAROIA: If we're going to take up 13 again. I am going to sustain the objection. :5 haven't seen yet, may I suggest that we take 15 have something reasonably to do with this. Jansen In response to a motion that we 24 unless I find that -- something that sigh! :6 up Mr. Jansen in response to a motion -- 24 1 understand the intent. But again, any -7 THE COURT: At this point, to try to 27 probative value would be materially :a marshal the number of articles, online 28 outweighed by the prejudice and the '7 articles, newspaper articles and 29 relevance. 20 publications related to Jeffrey Epstein is 20 Forty-six. Victim notification lett,. 71 close to impossible, so I'm not going to get 21 from the C.S. Attorney's Office to victi- ,2 into that right now. 22 Again, I think that more closely aligns 73 Report and analysis of Epstein's 23 itself with that victims' rights case that' 74 assets, again, likely goes to the punitive 24 being brought. 25 damages aspect. I'm not going to get into 25 Again, I will sustain until such time as I find it say have something to do with the issues I described earlier. Mr. Dennison's -- Dr. L. Dennison 4 report of victim. That's an expert? I don't know what that is. 6 MS. POCKEHBACH: Ask Mr. Scarola. 7 Psychological examination of Shane L.R. 8 This is something that was in the fader court action. 'o THE COURT: That was the same lady 1 tried to protect by not using her last name. '2 MS. ROCRENBACH: I apologize. Your ') Honor, and agree to strike that. 4 THR COURT: It's stricken. It will '5 Shane K., middle initial L. It may have 6 been a two-pert name. Just identify her as Shane L.R. That would be the designation we 8 use. 9 MS. ROCKKHBACH: I fail to see the relevance of a pSyChOlOgleal report. THE COURT: Same ruling. Again, it :2 doesn't nave anything to do with the three 53 ladies involved here. :4 Palm Beach Police Department incident 35 report. DOes that have anything to do with 2 3 4 6 any of the three people here? MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. question, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: I Again, I don't intend 7 time as I have THE COURT: 9 point o unle :2 3 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 20 71 12 25 0 COURT: Same thing with 49. Same ng with 50. Same ruling with regard to s. • it until IIII cashed ice relevance. ailment. And at this That will be sustained. ise necessary. HACH: I don't have copies MR. SCAROLA: I would only point out - when Your Honor is saying the same ruling. I'm sorry but I'm really not -- THIS COURT: Sustained, unless there's some reason for it to be provided as It relates to the three plaintiffs that Mr. represented, or It has to do with issues concerning his preparation, his evaluation of the cases, and all of the rest of those thing: that t have already indicated. And that it would not necessarily the contents of the eXhibit, tut the ability to speak generically about the fact that he had those exhibits on hand when he did what he did. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. THE COURT: Thanks. Same thing with 52, same ruling. who is Alberto Pinto? what does he 10 have to do with this? 11 MS. ROCKEIIBACH: This is a contractor 12 who my client hired to do a ing project. 23 There is no relevance. the letter. 14 We provided it to the, 25 THE COURT: 14 this? 17 MA. 19 Honor. It 20 21 22 An th1 , Mr. Scarola, position, Your SO\* ruling finding it to event, unless otherwise shown to the elate to Issues pertaining to at the Court has indicated or other? \\ say come up later on down the line. 4 repreliminarily going to sustain the objection. A S I 1 2 with the punitive aspects. I will defer on those. 4 KC2 emails. MC2 is another person who • has sued Mr. Epstein? II. ROCIUDIOACH: I do not know that • exhibit. 5,08 was the investing company that ▪ **was defrauded by Mr. Rothstein. THR COURT: 3 can't keep track .- 10 MS. ROCKEHBACR: 110. That's not right 21 I got that wrong. I don't have** OHM; 12 email,. I don't. 13 TRH COURT: Can anybody answer who KC? 24 may be? 15 MR. SCAROLA: No. sir. 24 THE COURT: Me will have to take a look 27 at those at a different time. At this point 28 I will reserve. 29 DVD of plea and colloquy. Me talked 20 about that earlier. Sustained, unless it 21 becomes an issue we need to deal with latr, 22 on. Preliminarily it's sustained. 23 Transcript of plea and colloquy taken 24 on 6/30/09. Same ruling. 23 Massage table. Again, unless it Bank statements, tax returns have to do becomes an issue as to one of these peoplv 2 indicating that -- strike that. Somebody that may indicate that massage was done, someone denying the 5 massage table ever existed, I don't think it's relevant. Again, it may come up as to massages a being done and that type of thing, but thn 9 actual table is a good exemplar of going io beyond, over the top of what we need to do here, that is, to bring the actual table. 12 It', not like those instance, where a 3 vehicle iS actually brought into a 1 courtroom, or part of a vehicle is brought 16 in for the jury to use the vehicle outside 16 the courthouse. The vehicle is the actual -- N MR. SCAROLA: I don't anticipate I2 bringing a massage table in, air. 20 THE COURT: All right. :hat's good to 21 know. Thank you. 22 No contact orders entered against 23 Epstein, criminal Score sheet regarding '4 Epstein, documents evidencing Epstein's Community control and probation, Epstein's 2 3 4 MR. SCAROLA: May we stop e THE COURT: Yes. Your Honor, was about to rub rough sex-offender registrations. 6 8 THE COURT: Sixty 62 is sustained for t aeons that I've already earlier indicate 0 record. \:2 :3 :6 A: Yee, es pert or In's sex offender registration. arty in the state of New York -- I'm sure the extent to which it applies elsewhere -- he was obliged to disclose his \:8 :9 20 71 72 ownership Interest in vehicles, airplanes and residences, that is, he had to list all of those things. And one of the ways that we have identified Jeffrey Epstein's assets is through those sex offender registration disclosures that he was obliged make and did make. 73 75 So it has to do with punitive damages in addition, perhaps, to something else. But it has to do with punitive damages in Sixty-three. stein's sex offender regl 10 THE COURT: What's its relevancy? 22 22 ME. SCAROLA: I'm not sure Nr. Epstein is going to be hare. 23 24 THE COURT: Are you to subpoena him? 2S 2\$ 27 Mx. SCAMOLA: 110. If he chooses not to %Pe videotaped deposition 18 ?MR 's fine. It 20 21 MA. I want to be able to as the person who got 22 2 COURT: it could be duplicative of 000. 2 THE COURT: I will defer. 20 21 THE COURT: i have already sustained the objection for reasons that were indicated earlier. 22 23 Mat of Epstein's house Contact,. You have that one? 24 15 MS. ROCKRIMACH: I do. May I approach, Your Honor? 24 27 28 THE COURT: Sure. MS. ROcEEHEACH: It's a document titled Vehicles, Mail Deliveries -- 19 May I retrieve these? 20 21 22 23 24 23 THE COURT: This looks like his vehicles, grocery stores that he shops at. health and beauty, utilities, storage, mail and delivery services. maintenance, travel, banking, bicycles, bookstore, cleaning service. Entertainment: Breakers, comedy particular. THE COURT: I will take a look at that when the time comes, if it comes at all. Thank you. Booking photographs. Again, same ruling as I made on the other matters regarding the criminal aspects of the ease. ME. SCAROLA: This would simply be a photograph, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: ft may 00. Again, I just want to explain to Your Honor that's why it's listed. CAD calls. C-A-D. MR. SCAROLA: I can't tell you. THE COURT: Sustained. MS. ROCKEHBACH: I have a copy of the exhibit that Mr. SearOlii provided. They are Palm Beach Police Department -- 2 3 a corner, Mar-s-Lago. It goes to different servicing companies, such as extermination type of thing. It has a list of names and numbers. i Okay, again the same ruling that I made 6 7 earlier, and that is, that it would not be relevant, except for issues that I have 8 discussed earlier that may impact upon i THE COURT: I'm sorry. '0 had, particularly at the time of his employ 10 is facing very substantial jeopardy. And 1 7 Investigating office, through its chief. IS challenging the way in which his cases are being treated is relevant and material with regard to his taking the highly unusual step of filing a baseless malicious claim against that is, Mr. Epstein filing that claim against 9 particularly Mr. ' diligence, what he 3 MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Epstein knows that he '1 with the Rothstein firm, and those things I 21 that letter is corroborative of that. It': '2 have already mentioned in the record. 12 part of what he knows when lies the ') Documents related to Epstein's 23 claim. '5 that we will take up et a later time. is MS. ROCKENEACII: next set of item: \:6 investments would be a punitive damage issue la THE COURT: She ion sustained. \*6 Letter from Chief Reiter from the Palm it 70 through 74, a letters from .1 Beach Police Department to harry Krischer, 39 Mr. Epetei y Pronstin, prior 8 it should be, instead of Krisehler, T ts counsel, o the a utent State Attorney '5 presume. It manna Bel ve from the Office of the 20 XS. ROCKINTRACK: That's correct. it's 20 tOrney. They are all different, but dated Vey let, 2006. 21 relate to -- for instance, Exhibit 23 Sixty-nine is a list of planes owned by 2 at rney fee payment where my client had necessary, for the punitive damages was going to be giving a statement to the 22 THE COURr: Let me take a look at it. 22 . 0 is a disclosure of third-party \:4 Epstein. That would be. again. reserved. if a tiered to PaY for his house manager, who 75 ?C ' HASir • component of the ease. I assistant state attorney. And it vas in 2 Did you see these letters 2 compliance with ethical rules. It 3 MR. SCAROIA: It's bee 1 t 1 5 THE COURT: I cool I n hat relevancy it would haw to do I this. 6 Unless you can provide additional I information, it ustained. actually is -- but it has no relevance. 'that's the point. It actually is a good thing. but here it shouldn't come in, because we are just getting too far astr7y. I have these documents and these 8 Pronstin. one of Mr. Epstein's f folders if Your Honor would like t0 100k at ) ottani, b t one ? il them. o . KENBACK: Yee, Your manor. 20 MR. SCAROLA: Part of what all the all ON -- Exhibits 70, 71. 11 attorneys prosecuting claims against e \:2 4, are all letters from -- 12 Epstein were dealing with, including Brad 3 SCAROIA: I'm sorry. I'm having 23 was the degree of control that ficulty doing two things at once. I'm 24 Mr. Epstein was exercising over various \:5 reading this letter. I would like -- I 15 witnesses. And those letters evidence the \:6 would like to comment that the Palm Bosch 26 degree of control that Jeffrey Epstein w2.- - 7 Police Department was the principle 37 exercising over various witnesses who wore '8 investigating agency with regard to these 28 part of the then ongoing criminal - 3 claims. And obviously, the chief's position 29 investigation. That is why such things a: 20 with regard to these claims is reflective of 20 the depositions of pilots and the 2: the quality of the claims that was called 21 subpoenaing of flight logs and the necessity 22 Into question in the complaint by 22 to try to find third parties who were not 72 Mr. Epstein. 23 under Mr. hpstein's influence to give sworn 74 So to the extent that Mr. Epstein iS 24 testimony concerning what was going on on 25 aware of the fact that the chief 25 airplanes became necessary. 1 [REDACTED] be relevant\ 2 if we were trying Mr. [REDACTED]' cases that\ 3 were settled. They are not remotely\ 4 relevant in this action. 5 THE COURT: I tend to agree. Again,\ 6 for the same reasons that I ruled earlier, I\ 7 sustain the objection to these letters from\ 8 this attorneys -- Mr. Epstein's attorneys to\ 9 the assistant State Attorney. 10 Mr. Goldberger's letters, 75. 11 [REDACTED] I approach, Your\ 12 Honor? It is dated June 22nd. 13 THE COURT: Off the record. 14 (A discussion was held off the record.) 15 THE COURT: I made an error confusing\ 16 Mr. Salnick with Mr. Krischer. I apologize\ 17 to them both. So I will need to take a look\ 18 at that letter from Chief Reiter again and\ 19 see if it changes my thought process in that\ 20 regard. 21 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, I have it,\ 22 if you want to take another look. It\ 23 encloses a probable cause affidavit and case\ 24 filing, packages from the police\ 25 department -- Palm Beach Police Department 1 from the chief of police. 2 THE COURT: Sure. Sorry about that. 3 I'm going to take the same position as\ 4 to number 68, so it's sustained for the\ 5 reasons I have earlier indicated. 6 Number 75, the letter from\ 7 Mr. Goldberger to Mr. Krischer. 8 Do you want to comment Mr. Scarola? 9 MR. SCAROLA: No, Your Honor. Same\ 10 argument. 11 THE COURT: Same ruling. I'm going to\ 12 sustain it. Also, it carries with it the\ 13 potential of Mr. Goldberger having to be a\ 14 witness. I just don't see it as necessarily\ 15 even tangentially related to the three cases\ 16 that we have. 17 I don't know if one of these young\ 18 women were part of this. The one who is\ 19 described here is not listed, even by\ 20 initials, so I will take the same position I\ 21 have taken earlier. 22 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, number 76,\ 23 I'm not sure if you need the packet, but\ 24 it's subpoenas that were issued. 1 have made earlier with regard to other\ 2 matters concerning the criminal file. 3 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you. 4 THE COURT: The documents related to\ 5 the rental of vehicles for [REDACTED].\ 6 Who is she? 7 MS. ROCKENBACH: I don't know that -- I\ 8 would have to have Mr. Scarola explain why\ 9 rental -- and I don't even see rental\ 10 agreements. I would expect to see a rental\ 11 car: Alamo, Hertz or something. This\ 12 document that was produced is FedEx labels,\ 13 priority overnight FedEx labels to my client\ 14 at his Palm Beach residence with a\ 15 handwritten note and it says, "Contract up\ 16 on February 2nd." Then it has a handwritten\ 17 note Dollar Rent a Car. No relevance. 18 THE COURT: I don't know who this is. 19 Do you have any idea who we are talking\ 20 about here? 21 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. 22 THE COURT: Same ruling. 23 Ted Shed. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. 25 THE COURT: Same ruling. 1 Documents related to the property\ 2 searches of Jeffrey Epstein's property. 3 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. 4 THE COURT: Same ruling. 5 Arrest warrant of [REDACTED]? 6 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. 7 THE COURT: Same ruling. 8 Police report regarding [REDACTED]\ 9 picking up money, dated 11/28/04. 10 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. 11 THE COURT: Same ruling. These are all\ 12 sustained, unless shown to the Court later\ 13 that there's a particular relevance to any\ 14 of these documents. That's the same ruling\ 15 I have indicated. 16 Eighty-two. List of Trilateral\ 17 Commission Members of 2003. Do you know\ 18 what that is? 19 MS. ROCKENBACH: I still don't, even\ 20 after looking at the document. But it is on\ 21 a website Bible Believers.org, a nine-page\ 22 document with individual names of people. 23 THE COURT: It's refreshing the Bible\ 24 is being mentioned during all of this. THE COURT: Same ruling. 2 Alan DerShOwitzt'S letter dated April 19th, '06, and statute 90.410. I 4 guess this has to do with similar activity. Sane argument? SCAROLA: This is slightly 7 different, Your Honor. This has to do with 8 the allegation that there was a significant 9 change in the approach to prosecution of these cases after Brad was employed • at RRA. And one of the elements that is :2 cited to is that he begins to take discovery 3 with regard to other victims. \:4 In fact, there were multiple activities '5 that occurred prior to brad's employment :6 with KRA that were directed at the discovery of matters relating to other victims. And • the federal statute requires that a notice be given to the other side of the intent to 20 rely upon evidence with regard to other victims. \:2 THE COURT: Did you take :3 Mr. Dershowit2'S deposition as it relates to :4 this case? 's RR. SCAROLA: No, sir. But I have had the pleasure of deposing Mr. Dern . 2 THE COURT: Not as it rest es 1 case? 4 YR. SCAROLA: No. M\$. ROCERNHACK: do not hss,e a copy • of the letter. Your Hon was not in • production. 8 THE COURT: cif defer on that on, 9 pr a In let . Again, goes with the same ro t ions that I earlier indicated. Vat :2 ein'S account information. :3 ROcKENRACH: I don't know what that ns. It was not produced. THE COURT: It will have to be produced :6 in the meantime. MR. SCAROLA: Yes. I hope it will :8 It is listed, although it has not yet been :9 produced by Mr. Epstein in anticipation of 20 his being ordered to produce it. THE COURT: Eighty-six. Rpstein's Iz criminal close-out sheet will, again, be 23 sustained for reasons earlier stated on the 74 record. 10 Case. Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. US 21 12 MR. SCAROLA: That's the CVRA care. Your Manor. 23 THE COURT: That wi y be 34 15 24 IT discussed -- obvious' discussed. How much o e pleadings that need to be addr a matter of the Court's co -ter. It 20 MR. Those are lust a to deposition excerpts. 21 22 COURT: Reiter letter to Krischer. heady been talked about. That's a number OS is Hyperion Alr passenger xenifest. Same ruling. Same thing with the flight information. Eighty-nine. Passenger list. 90, arm. ruling. Notepad/notes, Maria. MR. SCAROLA: Same argument. THE COURT: Same ruling. Rpst in Elf endment Speech. icetion, unless he wrote another one. SPie Check. I think it's a duplication. You can f. 1 MR. SCAROLA: Sixty-eight isn't dated. • This one is dated. I don't know whether they're two different letters or the same one, Your Honor. MS. ROCKRNOACH: Ninety-four. It manot produced to me. THE COURT: I'm going t0 assume that • it's the same unless it's produced • Separately. And it will be ordered to be 20 produced separately within IS days, if not 21 already done. 12 Just like anything else, I'm ordering 23 it be produced -- that I say have ordered in 24 the past -- within a 1S-day period. 15 Ninety-six. police 24 report. Same ruling, same position taken by 27 Mr. counsel. 16 victim's -- individual -- says 29 victim's -- not plural -- school records and 20 transcripts. I don't know which victim 21 you're talking about. Maybe it's the young 22 lady who was the model student, as discussed 23 earlier, allegedly prior to Mr. Epstein's 24 involvement. THE COURT: She's not one of the people 2 involved here today. XS. RocKKKBACR: That's correct. 4 TBR COURT: 1 will sustain it. MS. ROCM631RACH: Your Honor, if I way. 6 I think I haven sampling of this \*shit:- 7 All the pages I have in front of me say Shane R. 9 THE COURT: Ninety-seven would be the same ruling. Ninety-eight, the same ruling. :2 Ninety-nine, the same ruling. 11 One hundred. All surveillance conducted by law enforcement on Spotein's '3 home. Same ruling. :6 One hundred one. trails received by Palm beach Records related to Jeffrey :8 Epstein. '9 Who Is Pals Beach records? :0 XS. ROCKKNHACK: T don't know, and 7 don't have the exhibit. It was not :2 PrOdUtOd. :3 THE COURT: Again, to be Produced. 74 this titre sustained. Same ruling. '5 One hundred and two. All items listed At 3 6 :2 :3 :6 :8 :9 20 71 72 'I 25 on the Palm Beach Police Deportee rty report lists. Same ruling. One hundred and three. of convictions related to In. I ve already ruled on that, c lass obally that, until further in done and further inform\* le received regarding the pleas arW to ey apply, 1 am not in a pojaClon to • definitive ruling on that. huijled and six -- strike that. hundred and four is Jeffrey criminal records. That mirrors of the things I've indicated. It would be sustained pending further inquiry or review based upon reasons stated already by the Court. One hundred and five. All documents produced by Palm Beach Police Department prior to the deposition of Detective Recarey, R-K-C-A-R-R-Y. Again, same ruling. I'm just going to ignore 106. it's a catch-all I usually don't rule on any way. One hundred and thirteen. All Pleadings and attachments in the action under the Crime Victims' Rights Act prosecuted by on behalf of victinof Kpstein's criminal molestation. As 1 have done earlier, to be consistent, t sustain the objection Decoy. of it's breadth, lack of specificity, without prejudice, to specific documents being provided within 15 days to the 10 attorneys for Epstein. 21 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. We are 12 talking about 1132 23 THE COURT: Yee. 34 MR. SCAROLA: Th those. 15 Your Honor. Mr. Pate entered an 34 appearance in was permitted to 27 t hay got all of those 28 pleadings • also -- It THE hat's fine. But I could 20 5. that in -- I think somebody 21 eight or nine years' litigation -- 22 Mr. di/pollen pointed out earlier, not Y one of those documents are going to be •4 010vant here. KO whatever the plaintiff is Peeking to introduc, as a result of that 2 10 31 12 23 24 15 It 27 28 39 20 21 22 23 24 23 should be culled and should be provided to the other side. MR. SCAROLA: And sy response to that is, as 1 stand here right now, I don't know. 7 am listing it because it is potentially relevant. There's obviously been a lot of diaCuSeiOn to the Crime Victims' Rights ACt Case. And if Your Honor yenta me CO duplicate everything been filed in that Case -- THE COURT: That's not what Suggesting, Mr. Scarola. What I'm sayIng := the problem that I have and how I usually rule on those setters is that when a file is identified as all pleadings and attachments. particularly whereas here, your client is an attorney who is the lead attorney in the prosecution of the CVRA claims, then he should be aware of what would be relevant as it relates to his malicious prosecution claim against Epstein. Hot all of those documents will be relevant. I wouldn't expect a defendant in a malicious prosecution claim, Epstein, to have to review the -- attorneys in particular -- having to review all the MR. SCAROLA: Yes. sir. to light or 2 documents and guessing which ones may or n, the Court's ruling -- and I don't mean to be 5 the issue that I'm dealing with. take 113, and I would have a separate 7 provided to them -- 15 days maybe a little would produce every pleading on PACER. And 9 going to give you -- 1/13, 30 days. something that Your Honor believes that I 3 not be introduced or sought to be introduced arguing after the ruling. I only want to 4 or considered to be introduced. So thy— understand it. What I would do is I would 6 They must be culled and they must be listing of every pleading on PACER, and I a short in light of the holiday season, so I'm I don't want to do that if I'm doing '0 MS. ROCKPARACH: Shank you, Your Honor. lo ought not to be doing. '1 MR. SCAROLA: May I simply state that 31 SHE COURT: The reason why I say that '2 knowing what Mr. Epstein is going to attempt 11 that's involved here. II o, clearly '5 every pleading in the Crime Victims' Rights IS of medical records, wh er we're dealing 6 Act ease is potentially relevant? And every 36 with a set of p ychi Ic ecords, I one of those pleadings is available on 17 admissions -ital admissions to s PACER. And he is a party to the litigation. ts psychiatr C facil t es, rehabilitation 9 So to Comply with the Court's order ..., I It facilitie - I eve seen thousands of '4 in that case that is on PACER so that I have 4 believe to be relevant. 25 the flexibility to introduce whatever I Mal, There are a number of documents that '2 at this stage in this litigation, not 12 is, number one, we already h enough paper 6 to say with regard to the defense, that 14 in my view, whether w alin with a set 20 don't want co do something that Your Honor 20 a. rule done in camera inspections is telling me I ought not to do. hut to Si nda of documents. I have culled 22 comply with the order as you have described 22 fr. m -- probably often out of thousand, :.1 it, I would simply duplicate every pleading 2 of ocumenta -- 30, 40. 50, 70 pages of what XV;;;SY 224 2 THE COURT: That's why my ug a 2 individual per day that has no relevancy at s It would be the s thin f you were think of right off the top of any head. But • need to. I deal with food that was eaten by a given I it would be -- that the obj io all whatsoever with the treatment. 4 sustained as the exhibi ph 1 There are other things that I can't 6 to stand here today •• re in while they have to be documented by the I trial -- and sa re are the 3.000 docket hospital, they have to be documented by T., 2 entries to the C ctims' Rights Act 7 rehab facility, they are not nee SSSSS ily 9 case, a want lull,to review all ii relevant to the inquiry at issue and can l 0 3,00 t entries, which comprise 7,000 30 culled out. 2 No, the Jury is not going to go 12 being the lead attorney on that case. 3 th all of those without exactly knowing 13 despite Mr. Epstein being an intervener a- 1d say. No. it is not specific 11 Whit I'm fay" is. with your client t they are looking for. 14 some nature in that case. it's still I And so as phrased, the objection is 15 incumbent upon the party offering the 7 I have given you the opportunity to 17 compilation. And that is what I'm requiring \:6 sustained. 26 exhibits to present the most narrow :s otherwise remedy the situation. Rut if 18 you to do. :9 that's the response that I'm getting -- and 39 I gave you and your client 30 days to 20 I respect that -- then that's the ruling of 20 cull those documents that In good faith are 21 the Court. 21 going to be sought and be admitted, not the 73 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Again, I 23 admitting all of the docket entries over an '2 One hundred fourteen -- 22 entirety, because the likelihood of me 74 would, in light of Your Honor's comments -- 24 eight-year period or nine-year period -- 25 THE COURT: It was actually a ruling. 23 whatever it might -- for highly unlikely because of jury confusion, because of tine 2 and consideration of the jury's time when it 3 comes to that. 4 MR. SCAROLA: And 1 would never offer it all. 6 THE COURT: So that's exactly what I'm 7 trying to say. The 3O-day lead time that 1 8 am giving is in consideration of the amount 9 of documentation that would have to be reviewed, and that since Mr. would 1 likely be in the best position to be able to '2 cull out those documents that would '3 reasonably be calculated to be introduced • into evidence. '1 So that's the order of the Court. If 6 you take me up on it, that's fine. If you 7 don't, then, again, I an sustaining the • objection as phrased in number 113. So 9 that's with the caveat Chet I have described and offered CO you. Y.R. VITALE: Your Honor, with regard to :2 101, you had given us 15 days to produce. :3 WOuld that also be extended to 30 clays, :4 given the holiday? 23 THE COVET: WO. because, again. everything, other than what I come up with. I think you already s 0 produced it. And if it has b p,, n that should be 15 days. The Crime Victims lengthier and Comprises of litigation. if much or eight years exhibit list was Compiled and sen t 9 November, which is 4000 t roe or ur day. Short - bust Ae s short of a month, so they ho have been produced, bUt hive :2 those things that Ms. Rockenbach is :3 ng haven't been that would be 15 other than number 113. Number 114. Motion for :6 Summary Judgment. The Court would Ilk\* to 7 take judicial notice. \:8 Y.S. RocKENITACH: I don't know that it'. :9 an exhibit for the jury to consider. This 20 might go to -- 1 think -- I'm guessing -- it 7: was going to go to a legal argument before 72 Your Honor as to whether there was a bona 73 fide termination when my client dismissed 74 the original proceeding that he brought 25 against Mr. I'll'''. THE COURT: Perhaps. If it's an issue of fact, then it will be overruled. Mr. Scarola. you want to get heard? MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what I was going to say, Your Honor. If they are contending that there's an issue of fact as to whether there was a bona fide termination, then the circumstance under which the voluntary dismissal was 10 taken is obviously relevant and material. 21 What it was that was Jeffrey Epstein 12 declined to defend against ls4elevant and 23 material. 24 THE COURT: It t rule 15 One hundred and een is time rec: tir fi and hourly bill nq a scion produced in 1/ discovery. Is t and that rds' claim of lost time thing? a. SCAROLA: Yea, Your Honor. COURT: Well, that may come in as wages to the malicious prosecution Rave you received any of that yet? MS. ROCKEMRACM: T have a circle hero, weaning that it was not produced in the context and pursuant to the Court's order. THE COURT: You might want to get with Mr. Vitale and see if you can -- MR. SCAROLA: It was produced prior to Mr. itPet0121.6 deposition. In response to a request for production, all or th080 time records have been produced. THE COURT: Again, as I said with regard to 113, the documents have to be culled to sone degree so that it can be given to the other side as the exhibit that's being sought to be introduced at trial. At this time it may still be going on, so it may not be completed up to the time of the trial. Just like medical records, sometimes If there's ongoing treatment, even though somebody is at maximum medical improvement but they are still treating, there could still be a continuing type of exhibit. MR. SCAROLA: These are time records of Mr. ' time devoted to the defense c' the maliciously filed claim. Once that claim was dismissed, he was no longer 1 at a special-set hearing. So 1 would 2 devoting time to the defense of the claim. suggest that we set something in the near 3 Those records have all been produced. future for a half-hour hearing so that we 4 They have been specifically identified. He can deal with those issues independently. 5 has segregated out time spent in defense of think it's worth some tire to be taken. 7 that exhibit. and produced to the FBI by Rodriguez. 6 the case from anything else, and they have Phone journal taken from Epstein's home a But if they need it to be re-produced That's the houseman. Same ruling as I msde 9 to them again, and Your Honor directs that earlier with regard to that. "1 reproduce it again. 21 and Prince Andrew. '0 we need to re-produce it again, we will 10 Photograph depicting Maxwel: \:2 THE COVET: Again, I'm not directing 12 MS. RCCONIUBACE: No red nee to this 3 another reproduction. Perhaps, as I said, 33 action. It's prejudicia '5 Hs. Rockenbach and it can be taken care of 15 MR. SCAR091: Tee r. Same argument. :6 without further judicial intervention. I am 26 THE COURT: unless further \:4 Hr. Vitale can handle that issue with 34 THE COURT: Same et, . Sterol.? '7 sure it can. IT informatio v • bring to the Court "0 Next is all claims filed by EPStein in ts Otherwis :0 would have to see those when the time cores. 20 Same ruling. '9 the Rothsteinbankruptcyproceeding. I 19 All ht OBS. We talked about those \:2 All submissions by Epstein in Connection with the Rothstein deposition. :3 Again, I will see those when the time COMS. 2 M ng. 'S All settlement agreements between that. the source of information regarding 21 22 nee of contributions t0 the Pei, Bea lice Department. Sustained. Sam. \:4 if necessary. 7 will defer on those two. 4 MR. SCAROLA: Tee. sir. I did speak of S HCASSr' • Epstein and victims of sexual mol one. I his assets. 4 three individuals at is 1 to deal with it. , 6 MR. SCAROLA: You Honor, t ere have been objections that has raised to the Is of a Contractual f ntiality provision. 9 25, 2O11. 2 Again, I would have to see the w - 2 inn COURT: And I think I deferred on 3 time comes. I am most inte to t • that. If I didn't, that's the way I'm going One hundred and thirty-two, New York Post article: billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: 7 production of t documents On the basis I'm a sex offender, not a predator. February 9 If allege on remains that these S Mn. SCAROLA: These are direct quotes :2 •S at least discoverable with regard 12 children as the equivalent of Stealing a 1 to ng a determination as to whether the 23 bagel. '0 case -- a three at issue -- were somehow 20 from Mr. Epstein. It's the article in which, n the value of the claims in 21 he compares the abuse inflicted upon ims were ginned up. le THE COURT: Cnsworn statement out of \:5 And again, the degree of financial 15 court being used to prove the truth of the :6 exposure that Xr. Epstein was facing Is 16 wetter asserted? :2 reflected by the settlements of all of the 22 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. Being used to :0 claims that he ultimately settled after the is prove the fact that the statement was mad-, :9 filing of this maliciously -- allegedly 29 being used to prove the state of the 20 maliciously prosecuted lawsuit. 20 speaker's rind, and being used for purpose 2: So we will be asking the Court to 21 of the jury's f punitive 22 compel production of all of those settlement 22 damages. 23 agreements. 23 We don't contend that molesting 24 THE COVET: That's something that 24 children is the equivalent of stealing a 25 probably will need to be dealt with probably 25 bagel. 2 2 a If we were introducing this statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted. we would be advocating that molesting a child is the equivalent of stealing a bagel. 1 Mr. iiPStein doe' show up for trial, one of the very first questions I'm going to ask him is, Did you wake this statement to thr New York newspaper? 5 6 2 INK cOlnir: No. I'm not sure that's the way that the hearsay rule is implemented. '0 9 Ils. Rockanbach, your position? ?IS. ROCKRNSACM: Thank you. We did IRK COURT: Like I said, we will cal that up when time comes. Me can further discuss the objections at the same time we are going to be discussing the -- all settlement agreements, 119. All right. 'o raise h . We raised relevance. We 10 MS. ROCKKSBACK: Thank you, Your Honor. • raised probative value substantially 11 TRIC COURT: Thanks a lot to our court '2 outweighed by the danger or unfair 12 reporter for staying and wor 9 through '3 prejudice, confusion. misleading the jury, 23 this. as we have, today. \:4 as well as hearsay and authenticity. 24 MR. SCAROLA: I that are '5 This is a very good example of an IS going to deal with lei ndsent issue/ :6 inflamsatory exhibit by Mr. , and it 25 the first issue r onvene? 'I seeks to try to prove. I guess, that my 2/ 7MK thought we talk\*\*, I client is a bad person or bad character is about th e alre '3 evidence under 90.404. This is hearsay end lt MA. ' No, no. You remember :0 It should not be admitted. It would be 20 t• dentifled every question and answer? inflammatory and very prejudicial to my 21 COURT.: You are talking about the 22 client. 22 Ind 01 questions and answers. Yes, Sir. \:1 THE COCK,: Any request for admissions :4 sent out in response to that article? 2\\ And we will take those up 4 fret. and thenowefwillrgoetoithoomotions,to Compel and n or ve rder. 11 MR. SCAROLA: There may have been. 4Itk i, Sir 236 • There certainly were deposition ns I we have the time, okay? ? concerning whether Mr. Wpsteln 2 Remember on Thursday, we're pretty much 1 a i 6 1 statements to any third par re any of his molestation clai, nd erted the fifth Amendment wi repay o those. So we would have the be f an adverse inference in th ard. going to limit us to the morning. So we are going to from 10 to 12, 12:30, then that will be it. Okay. So try and govern your arguments accordingly, if you would, please. 1 ale going to give you these trateri•IS 8 And the eta n of a party opponent a back. 2 is not rsay tement. l'w sorry. il Mr. Scared., as 1 said, l's going to o Ther a exception to the hearsay rule for 10 impose upon you to prepare the orders as T •2 to state of mind. And clearly the 12 this point, since we do have thine actual '1 is attitude about the offense he 23 questions, that we can really prepare an :5 damages claim. 15 to the Fifth Amendment global rulings that OEM of a party opponent. Rut it 21 have already indiCated. I'm not sure at tted is highly relevant in a punitive 24 order until we get this done on Thursday as 'a of concern to me in this particular context 26 once I have had an opportunity to go through \:6 MR COURT: I recognise the party 26 the Court has already made. And it may - 7 opponent issue. Again, its application is 27 become more focused and be more specific '9 where the information comes from. a 39 all of these. And I appreciate the fact 20 newspaper. 20 that you have done that and gotten them to 71 So I would have to take a look at it. 21 22 Maybe we can set that at the same time we 22 In the meantime what I'm going to do is 71 are going to set that other issue about the 23 I'm going to keep some of this material. 74 other victims' information. 24 MR. LINK: Judge, thank you for your 25 MR. SCAROLA: I can assure you that, if 25 time today. We appreciate your patience for 1 giving us so much time.\ 2 THE COURT: Have a good day. See you\ 3 back Thursday at 10, okay. 4 - - -\ 5 (The above proceedings were\ 6 concluded at 4:35 p.m.)\ 7\ 8\ 9\ 10\ 11\ 12\ 13\ 14\ 15\ 16\ 17\ 18\ 19\ 20\ 21\ 22\ 23\ 24\ 25 1 COURT CERTIFICATE 2\ 3\ 4 STATE OF FLORIDA )\ 5 : SS\ 6 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ) 7 I, SONJA D. WALL, certify that I was\ 8 authorized to and did stenographically report the\ 9 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a\ 10 true record of my stenographic notes. 11\ 12\ 13 Dated this 7th day of December 2017.\ 14\ 15\ 16 17 \_\_\_\_\_\ 18\ 19\ 20\ 21\ 22\ 23\ 24\ 25 SONJA D. [REDACTED] | A | | | | | | -------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | a.m 1:16 61:17,17
95:16 | accomplished
112:10,13 | 159:8 160:3
168:10 201:9,11 | 151:5,12 152:16
195:19 | 177:20
Air 215:1 | | AB 189:11 | account 35:8 111:10
111:25 133:16
214:12 | 201:17 236:12
AD 179:2,4 180:7
add 24:13 30:13,19
104:12 | affirmative 3:4,17
3:19 7:21 9:6,21
10:1,4,8,18,20
12:17,18 14:1,4
14:10,14 21:2,5
23:11,12,13,20,22
23:25 24:3,8,12
25:4 27:8,23 28:5
28:8 29:3 34:4,13
34:25 35:3,13,22
36:20,21 37:11
40:18 48:6,8,21
49:2,8,12 50:1,8
51:25 52:22 53:3
53:4,7 54:1 56:24
75:9 188:21
192:19 | airplane 65:21,22
66:4 79:2 156:7
156:11 164:11
airplanes 72:12
202:16 208:25
akin 150:10 151:22
Alamo 211:11
Alan 213:2
albeit 27:22 78:5
Alberto 199:9
Alexandra 212:8
216:15
align 80:20
aligns 196:22
allegation 6:16
41:20 42:9 68:12
82:14 84:4,10,24
86:19 139:7,16,17
144:23 213:8
230:9
allegations 3:24 4:5
5:9 6:23 7:19,22
8:14 9:3,25 16:15
17:15 23:16 31:11
31:19,22,23 37:5
43:17 47:8,24
67:19,21,22 71:21
71:22 73:5 74:5
77:8 87:4 88:9
123:25 136:20
139:6,15,20 142:4
145:19 184:4
186:20,23 187:13
187:17
allege 12:17 27:17
alleged 16:24 34:9
65:3,13 67:18
68:21 80:4,19,20
80:21 81:10 84:13
89:22 101:4
106:11 157:22
allegedly 40:22
51:12 216:23
230:19
alleges 67:6
alleging 27:16
allow 10:11 11:5
28:15 29:9,11
30:5 52:24 75:11
102:9 106:15
110:18 154:12
allowed 8:25 9:2,24
10:13 14:23 27:8
99:14 106:2 117:8
136:18 182:23,25
allowing 18:24
28:23,24 146:13 | | | accomplished
112:10,13 | additional 21:2
206:6
Additionally 49:13
address 55:10 57:6
104:17 105:12
107:13 108:25
123:12 148:8
156:6,9
addressed 13:16,17
13:18,20 19:12
28:25 49:11 53:7
128:21 192:3
215:16
addresses 50:9
adequately 44:25
adjudging 178:5
adjudicate 128:16
adjusting 96:13
Adler 65:8 116:4
admissible 65:12
72:8 120:6,17
186:8,9
admission 163:22
171:6 189:5
admissions 189:24
192:8 223:17,17
233:23
admit 23:15 58:9
admitted 59:18,18
145:14 224:21
233:20
admittedly 113:24
admitting 224:23
adopt 158:14
adopting 131:24
148:17
advantage 120:8
adverse 110:19,21
125:5 163:23
178:12 234:6
advertises 37:8
advice 10:6,15
advisory 146:8
186:3,4
advocates 100:16
advocating 233:3
affect 190:3
affidavit 162:4
195:22 209:23
affidavits 138:15 | affirmatively 10:15
18:18
afforded 38:12
47:11 61:9
afield 80:3 141:15
aforesaid 1:20
95:20
afternoon 55:18,20
55:24 91:19 92:9
92:23 93:14
AG 189:9
age 78:4 102:15
166:6,6 167:3
agency 206:18
agents 129:2
ago 116:22 173:6
agree 33:6 57:15
86:9,13 143:23
144:5 170:17
193:8,22 197:13
209:5
agreed 102:16
103:23 183:9
agreeing 50:19
agreement 48:13
52:1 76:6 98:9,11
98:17,19,21 99:1
99:11,17,24 103:7
104:23 106:6,23
110:14 111:7
115:24 118:25
120:4,12,25 121:6
155:16 160:10
182:17 183:1
agreements 211:10
229:25 230:23
235:9
ahead 3:13 93:1
96:6 102:23
109:25 160:23 | airplane 65:21,22
66:4 79:2 156:7
156:11 164:11
airplanes 72:12
202:16 208:25
akin 150:10 151:22
Alamo 211:11
Alan 213:2
albeit 27:22 78:5
Alberto 199:9
Alexandra 212:8
216:15
align 80:20
aligns 196:22
allegation 6:16
41:20 42:9 68:12
82:14 84:4,10,24
86:19 139:7,16,17
144:23 213:8
230:9
allegations 3:24 4:5
5:9 6:23 7:19,22
8:14 9:3,25 16:15
17:15 23:16 31:11
31:19,22,23 37:5
43:17 47:8,24
67:19,21,22 71:21
71:22 73:5 74:5
77:8 87:4 88:9
123:25 136:20
139:6,15,20 142:4
145:19 184:4
186:20,23 187:13
187:17
allege 12:17 27:17
alleged 16:24 34:9
65:3,13 67:18
68:21 80:4,19,20
80:21 81:10 84:13
89:22 101:4
106:11 157:22
allegedly 40:22
51:12 216:23
230:19
alleges 67:6
alleging 27:16
allow 10:11 11:5
28:15 29:9,11
30:5 52:24 75:11
102:9 106:15
110:18 154:12
allowed 8:25 9:2,24
10:13 14:23 27:8
99:14 106:2 117:8
136:18 182:23,25
allowing 18:24
28:23,24 146:13 | | allows 27:6 66:14 | 129:14 | 191:8 202:14 | 215:7 226:21 | 178:11 | | ------------------ | ------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------- | | alluding 113:18 | announced 83:14 | apply 13:12 15:7 | 231:14,15 | asserts 21:6 | | altered 21:13 | answer 3:4 10:3 | 16:20 25:13 27:1 | arguments 27:11 | assessment 232:21 | | alternative 120:22 | 57:1 79:11 81:4 | 27:22 28:1 29:20 | 46:25 60:10,11,13 | assets 163:2 181:5 | | 120:23 | 87:16 101:25 | 50:16 52:12 218:8 | 117:10 124:24 | 194:24 202:19 | | ambiguity 187:6 | 105:23,25 109:19 | appointment 156:7 | 131:5 150:2 236:6 | 232:1 | | amenable 51:4 | 120:14 138:10 | 156:10 | arises 115:8 163:20 | assignment 8:5 | | amend 3:4,16 10:13 | 186:2 200:13 | appreciate 30:11 | arose 17:15 | assistance 173:1 | | 10:15 11:5 13:22 | 235:20 | 33:11 39:18 46:23 | arrest 128:25 | 180:6 191:1 | | 14:23 20:10 28:12 | answered 38:14 | 85:9,24 94:19 | 184:18 185:5 | assistant 207:18 | | 28:23 29:13 32:4 | 138:10,13 | 97:25 103:2 105:1 | 212:5 | 208:1 209:9 | | 51:22 53:11 54:6 | answering 138:5 | 135:20 146:13 | arrows 125:7 | associated 71:9 | | 57:1 105:8 | answers 41:25 55:8 | 158:1 173:1 | article 49:16 52:15 | 121:15 | | amendable 28:2 | 163:11 188:21 | 236:19,25 | 71:9 76:10 232:6 | associating 8:9 | | 53:24 | 189:5 190:1 | appreciated 72:21 | 232:10 233:24 | assume 61:21 64:5 | | amended 62:25 | 192:18 235:22 | appreciates 123:14 | articles 193:3,3,7,23 | 125:17 139:12 | | amending 27:6 | anti-trust 13:8 | approach 8:1 62:24 | 194:1,7,18,19,19 | 159:15 216:7 | | 107:11 | 36:11,12,17 48:18 | 64:11 81:22 | articulate 155:14 | 235:14 | | amendment 12:25 | 53:13 | 130:24 167:24 | aside 16:22 94:4 | assuming 23:17 | | 13:24 27:7 28:3 | anticipate 118:22 | 204:14 209:11 | 98:8,25 99:10 | 62:21 120:1 | | 28:15 29:7,10 | 123:8 201:18 | 213:9 | 106:5,22 110:1,13 | assure 234:25 | | 48:25 52:24 53:5 | anticipated 118:3,6 | appropriate 22:14 | 110:25 111:6,10 | astray 76:17 172:25 | | 54:15 55:11 | anticipation 214:19 | 57:22 101:23 | 119:1,1,2 120:25 | 208:6 | | 100:21 101:21 | any/all 163:1 | 131:21 149:9 | 121:7 128:15 | attached 20:9 162:7 | | 108:16 109:9 | anybody 54:10 | 155:18 164:15 | 139:11 | 194:9 | | 110:16 114:25 | 101:5 111:14 | 196:10 | asked 11:4 34:18 | attachments 219:1 | | 119:5,9 120:13,21 | 200:13 | approximately | 40:18,19 53:22 | 220:15 | | 126:16,23 127:18 | anymore 130:12 | 132:6 153:23 | 54:15 70:21,25 | attacked 27:9 | | 147:21 163:21 | anyway 182:1 | April 183:19 184:20 | 71:3 90:4 111:16 | attacking 29:13 | | 164:2,6 178:11 | apologize 92:5,25 | 184:21 213:3 | 136:24 138:6 | attempt 32:11 | | 215:18 234:5 | 105:17,19 135:20 | area 40:3 106:18 | 176:17 178:23 | 51:21 76:18 80:20 | | 235:15 236:15 | 197:12 209:16 | arguable 38:15 | 112:22 125:22 | 80:21 82:13 106:5 | | amendments 27:5 | apparent 59:16 | arguably 42:24 | 143:18 145:16 | 106:22 125:4 | | 27:12,20 30:5 | appeal 119:18,20,21 | 79:21 108:14 | 143:18 145:16 | 147:4 221:13 | | 49:15 52:14 | 119:23,24 123:5 | 140:19 | 230:21 | attempted 70:6 79:6 | | ammunition 130:9 | 133:10,13 135:11 | argue 30:1 38:2 | aspect 30:24 31:2 | attempting 27:17 | | amount 44:23 59:8 | appeals 121:12 | 92:21 113:14 | 34:5 43:9,10 | 32:3 54:6 147:6 | | 91:6 113:19 | 173:5 | argued 29:24 | 96:16 150:11 | 170:5 190:19 | | 170:18 182:24 | appearance 165:18 | 165:23 | 194:25 226:5 | attempts 153:2 | | 183:10 225:8 | 219:16 | arguing 12:9 32:5 | aspects 77:10 80:17 | attention 33:11 | | amply 131:13 | 2:1 | 45:21 57:7 223:3 | 103:3 124:11 | 43:13 115:19 | | analogize 27:14 | APPEARANCES | argument 15:3 | 164:3 200:2 203:7 | 124:1 171:5 | | analogous 126:14 | appellate 59:24 | 24:23 31:3,9 | assault 78:5 81:10 | 174:19 188:6 | | 140:14 | 61:4 91:8 124:14 | 35:10 36:19 47:3 | 116:7 | ATTERBURY 2:12 | | analogy 27:21 | 173:3 | 49:23 55:20 66:13 | assaulted 71:25 | attitude 234:13 | | 151:23 | apples 80:1 | 84:23 86:1 93:12 | assaults 69:8 71:11 | attorney 19:19 20:1 | | analysis 9:10,11 | applicability 51:18 | 93:18 100:10 | 71:22 79:18 | 21:21 38:10 58:20 | | 29:17 38:4 51:2 | 191:10 | 107:6 115:21 | assembled 91:17 | 85:4 98:4 99:6 | | 100:6 114:8,10 | applicable 50:13 | 126:21 148:16,18 | 94:20 | 122:8 132:17 | | 127:21 128:1,23 | 72:4,5 131:21 | 149:21 151:20,21 | assert 40:9 | 172:3 207:18,20 | | 132:22 141:6,11 | 133:7 151:3 | 152:12,17,19 | asserted 28:9 34:25 | 207:23 208:1 | | 141:13 144:12 | application 35:25 | 153:3,9,11 154:16 | 147:20 232:16 | 209:9 220:17,17 | | 153:7 170:9 | 36:1,5 38:13 | 155:3 157:11 | 233:2 234:4 | 224:12 | | 194:23 | 48:15 52:13 | 158:15 164:22 | assertion 25:1 39:17 | Attorney's 75:19 | | and/or 167:11 | 129:22 134:16 | 165:16,20 181:9 | 67:1,16 119:4,8 | 98:12 168:18 | | Andrew 231:11 | 161:8,24 162:5,15 | 181:10 190:8 | 120:20 126:23 | 171:21,23 173:9 | | anecdotally 111:24 | 234:17 | 198:8 210:10 | 127:18 147:8 | 174:1 196:21 | | 112:12 | applied 5:4 | 211:21,24 212:3,6 | 163:21 164:3 | attorneys 56:22 | | anniversary 115:10 | applies 25:8 100:23 | 212:10,25 213:5 | assertions 55:11 | 58:19 80:11 206:9 | | 208:11 209:8,8 | banking 204:24 | 29:22 30:5,7 | 20:13 124:2,5 | built 22:23 52:20 | | -------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | | 219:10 220:25 | bankruptcy 229:19 | 31:25 37:1 41:4 | 139:2 190:16 | 54:3 113:17 | | attributable 51:15 | banks 164:5 | 45:23 56:21 65:15 | 208:12 213:10 | built-in 52:3,18 | | augment 60:6 | bar 15:15,18 48:10 | 86:17,22 107:22 | Brad's 213:15 | bulk 35:13 | | Australian 2:12 | BARNHART 2:7 | 111:25 136:9,23 | 1:8 32:7 | burden 21:1,8 | | authenticity 233:14 | barred 27:19 50:12 | 138:9 146:18 | 46:6 65:4,6,14,18 | 118:5 123:16,19 | | authoritatively | Barry 205:17 | 148:6 155:24 | 67:4,7,15 69:22 | 123:22 142:1,2 | | 102:21 | based 7:4,15,22 | 158:21 159:9 | 72:2,15 95:8 | 143:20 145:3 | | authority 8:23 | 11:10 14:24,25 | 164:2 172:23 | 106:24,25 152:22 | burdens 21:11 | | authorized 29:22 | 17:2 21:3 26:20 | 175:8 176:9 | 155:6,24 156:21 | Burlington 12:10 | | 30:8 238:8 | 28:3 41:21 45:15 | 177:24 180:7 | 169:19 186:22 | 12:11,12 18:19 | | automatic 56:18 | 72:22 78:12 | 198:5 223:24 | 190:12,20 191:20 | 20:19,21 28:7 | | 57:4 | 106:13 173:12 | believed 22:7 | 191:22 207:6,7 | 30:10 33:24 35:10 | | automatically | 218:16 | Believers.org | branch 22:11,11 | 40:15,19 41:24 | | 159:15 | baseless 12:23 21:4 | 212:21 | branches 13:10 | 51:10 56:20,23 | | automobile 118:12 | 207:5 | believes 121:2 223:9 | breadth 219:7 | 57:2 | | available 7:5 93:8 | bases 65:3 | BellSouth 162:8 | break 54:10 61:12 | Burlington's 47:3 | | 169:18,21 221:17 | basic 38:14 | Belohiavek 207:19 | 91:12,13 136:2,8 | business 17:7 78:9 | | Ave 2:12 | basing 62:22 | bench 149:22 | Breakers 204:25 | 226:10 | | Avenue 2:16 | basis 21:14 30:8 | benefit 234:6 | brevity 148:14 | businesses 59:9 | | avoid 17:3 50:15 | 37:3 64:16 65:11 | BERARD 2:4 | bridge 44:18 | busy 169:4 | | 121:17 125:8 | 72:3,14 79:20 | best 56:8 93:6,13 | brief 24:18 51:10 | | | avoidance 49:25 | 115:20 116:14 | 129:23 170:5 | 112:10 | C-A-D 204:3 | | 52:8 53:1 54:5 | 117:2 119:4 | 225:11 | briefly 78:18 86:5 | C.W 98:5 102:6 | | avoided 33:4 109:23 | 121:13 142:20 | better 8:23 56:1 | bright-line 140:11 | CAD 204:3 | | 124:15 | 145:25 147:13,17 | beyond 39:1,13 | bring 9:24 11:19 | calculated 70:7 72:7 | | award 25:3 44:22 | 147:25 148:7 | 109:22 201:10 | 17:18 18:24 41:12 | 225:13 | | aware 58:21 79:19 | 154:23 162:15 | Bible 212:21,23 | 42:24 87:1,8 | call 41:15 110:4,5 | | 113:2 131:2 | 171:14 172:9 | bicycles 204:24 | 96:25 110:23 | 143:14 145:14 | | 158:23 206:25 | 190:25 192:11,16 | big 42:10 | 131:8 138:17 | called 17:1 18:19 | | 220:19 | 192:22 193:1 | Bill 76:9 | 149:22 156:19 | 82:5 92:9 109:17 | | axiom 129:21 | 194:4 230:7 | billing 227:16 | 174:19 201:11 | 117:1 127:4,8 | | | battle 121:21 | Billionaire 232:6 | 231:17 | 168:6 169:3 | | B | Beach 1:2,17,22,23 | binder 122:3 129:7 | bringing 33:11 91:2 | 206:21 | | B 62:5 150:20 | 1:23 2:3,4,8,8,13 | bit 30:14 68:4 104:9 | 107:11 108:18 | calling 183:6 | | back 3:2 12:1 15:2 | 95:2,17,22,23,23 | 138:7 141:15 | 123:1 132:17 | calls 204:3 | | 32:4 56:1,14 | 168:18 171:20 | black 45:20 87:9 | 180:9 185:3 | camera 223:20 | | 61:15 72:24 74:15 | 173:25 197:24 | blueprint 73:10 | 189:17 193:24 | car 211:11,17 | | 91:2,16 94:20 | 204:8 205:17 | blur 51:5 | 201:19 | care 96:7 102:11 | | 114:5 135:17,24 | 206:16 209:25 | board 22:5,6 138:22 | broad 85:16 | 229:15 | | 140:2 141:16 | 211:14 217:17,19 | boats 195:16 | broadly 49:5 190:7 | carefully 43:2 102:2 | | 146:7,10,14 174:7 | 218:1,19 231:22 | boiling 35:10 | brought 23:5 27:14 | 182:7 | | 186:13 236:8 | 238:5 | bold 45:19 | 36:3 48:17 51:16 | carried 123:7 | | 237:3 | beauty 204:22 | bolster 70:8 | 52:18 76:8 80:15 | carries 210:12 | | backing 190:22 | befits 83:5 | bona 17:24 226:22 | 227:7 | carry 123:22 | | backup 55:6 | beginning 45:12 | 227:7 | bono 190:25 | 151:25 | | backwards 184:21 | begins 213:12 | boon 190:25 | book 156:6 | cars 195:16 | | 184:21 | begun 116:17 | booking 203:5 | books 156:7,10,10 | carve 170:6 | | bad 91:2 150:15 | 27:11 33:13 73:17 | bookstore 204:24 | bootstrap 20:2 | carved 90:19 | | 233:18,18 | 80:16 98:24 134:2 | bootstrap 20:2 | bottom 5:20 68:9 | carve 170:6 | | badly 129:16 | 154:24 186:21 | bottom 5:20 68:9 | 179:15 | carved 90:19 | | 233:4 | 187:9 219:3 | Boulevard 1:23 2:3 | 2:8 95:23 | case 1:3 3:22 4:8,8 | | bait 76:14 | belief 69:4 72:14 | Boulevard 1:23 2:3 | 157:18 170:7 | 4:24 8:24 11:13 | | balanced 18:23 | 103:21 138:1 | bound 159:12 | 171:5 187:8,12,16 | 13:13 14:3 15:3,8 | | balancing 114:10 | 173:12 | bounty 156:18 | 188:5 196:24 | 16:9 17:13,14,15 | | 133:18 | beliefs 71:2 | Brad 12:13 20:10 | 201:13,14 226:24 | 18:5,7,8,15,19 | | balls 92:7 | believe 4:4 11:6 | | | 19:5,18,21 20:4 | | bank 162:25 200:1 | 23:10 25:11 26:19 | | | 20:24 21:12,13,19 | | 23:2,2,4,19 24:20 | 26:22 27:6 28:17 | celebrities 69:11 | 156:11,13,15,18 | 207:5,7,13 220:21 | | ------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | | 25:15,18 26:16 | 28:19 34:10,22 | 70:7 71:10 77:5 | 156:19 157:8 | 220:24 227:18,23 | | 27:15 29:2,14 | 36:9 39:12 40:20 | center 80:14,17 | 166:8,9 232:12,24 | 228:25 229:1,2 | | 35:25 37:11 41:1 | 40:21 41:19,19 | 187:12 | chilling 88:19 | 234:15 | | 41:2,3,8,17,25 | 53:13 59:2 71:5,6 | certain 98:15 | choice 110:15 | claimed 69:5 85:18 | | 42:6 43:19,20 | 73:1 75:4 76:13 | 100:11 103:25 | 114:24 134:14,15 | claiming 48:22 | | 47:6 48:10,18,19 | 76:14 77:25 80:22 | 117:20 152:2 | choices 132:16 | 113:16 116:10 | | 49:4,11 52:12,17 | 81:5,7 83:17,22 | 175:12 179:12 | choose 115:4 | 171:14 | | 53:16 58:24 64:20 | 100:14 103:16 | certainly 14:21 | chooses 203:16 | claims 16:16,21 | | 66:15 73:10,11,19 | 118:12 121:9,9 | 29:25 35:17 51:4 | chose 134:11 | 17:19 19:8,13 | | 74:14 75:5,8,12 | 128:4 143:13,15 | 51:8 56:5 58:21 | chosen 132:18 | 24:3,7 29:23 | | 77:19 78:1 80:4 | 145:1,5,12,12 | 107:21 112:11 | Cingular 162:9 | 32:12,17,22 35:4 | | 81:14 83:22 87:2 | 147:19 153:8 | 129:22 170:18 | circle 227:25 | 35:20 49:21,23 | | 87:23 88:1,15,16 | 158:23 159:23 | 234:1 | CIRCUIT 1:1,1 | 50:11,12,13 51:11 | | 88:16,20,22 95:3 | 174:19 178:5 | CERTIFICATE
238:1 | 95:1,1 | 53:15 54:24 71:17 | | 96:16,23 97:14 | 183:15 184:13,25 | certified 18:2 | circulating 124:4 | 72:16 78:5 80:12 | | 98:1,7 99:10,21 | 185:3,4,7,12 | 179:19 | circumstance 90:9 | 80:15,19 82:20 | | 102:6 103:13,17 | 188:22 189:7,13 | certify 238:7 | 93:15 118:19 | 83:3 85:15 101:11 | | 106:9,16,19 107:1 | 189:13 190:15 | cetera 177:14 | 227:8 | 106:11 109:24 | | 109:12,15,16 | 191:21 192:10,19 | challenge 24:9 | circumstances
117:20 126:15,25 | 116:12 117:2,8,8 | | 110:9,10,12 111:3 | 196:2 198:24 | 120:20 182:23 | 130:11 169:14 | 122:19 123:4 | | 111:8,18 112:2 | 207:2 209:2 | 183:1 | 178:15 | 134:1 138:25 | | 113:11 114:6,17 | 210:15 213:10 | challenges 24:11 | citations 135:2 | 139:1,3,9 140:12 | | 114:22 116:1,3 | 230:10 | challenging 28:10 | cite 4:22 13:7 16:25 | 140:12 144:14 | | 117:6 118:14 | cassell 191:2 | 185:3 207:2 | 18:17 21:12 | 147:5,9,24 154:13 | | 119:11,13,14 | catch-all 218:23 | chance 56:7 | 18:17 21:12 | 154:23 155:12,25 | | 120:3,24 121:7,16 | categorical 15:22 | change 26:18 60:7 | cited 5:25 13:3 18:5 | 157:3 158:2,3,6 | | 123:6 124:8,12 | 9:23 16:13 17:2 | change 24:9 | 18:16 19:5 20:24 | 159:22 160:3 | | 125:3,4,13,14,19 | 22:24 23:4 25:18 | 174:20 213:9 | 23:6 26:16 28:18 | 169:2,5 170:7 | | 125:20 126:10,25 | 26:12 27:14,17 | changed 45:24 | 28:19 29:2 59:6 | 178:18 192:6 | | 127:2,4,7,16,22 | 29:21 30:7 31:13 | changes 209:19 | 135:4,8 213:12 | 206:19,20,21 | | 128:16 129:10,16 | 31:18,21 34:11 | changing 21:10 | citing 127:7 135:3 | 208:11 220:18 | | 129:20 130:17 | 40:24 41:6,21 | character 150:16 | civil 5:21 16:7 19:23 | 229:18 230:11,14 | | 131:5 132:8,19,25 | 42:16 43:6,11 | character 23:18 | 42:4,8,21 54:23 | 230:18 234:4 | | 133:8 134:10 | 45:9,12,22 46:3,4 | characterizing
50:17 | 75:17 81:9 87:1 | clarification 85:10 | | 136:12 137:4 | 46:7,9,12,14 61:7 | charge 118:16 | 112:20 117:21 | 85:24 | | 138:19 139:21 | 67:15 74:23 80:8 | charge 177:2 | 119:13,14 131:20 | clarify 86:14 99:20 | | 140:4 141:22 | 90:16,25 91:1 | charges 32:8 101:12 | 137:17,25 138:25 | 181:20 184:22 | | 142:9 143:7,21 | cause 1:19 6:7,12,14 | charges 50:22 | 152:23,24 179:16 | clarity 5:19 | | 144:3 145:18,22 | 139:14,18 140:1 | charges 3:2 101:12 | 188:22 191:4,24 | cleaning 204:24 | | 146:9 147:20 | 143:1 145:20 | 102:25 103:4 | 192:19 | clear 3:23 4:9 5:1 | | 150:13,21 151:4,8 | 146:4 151:5,11 | chase 149:6 | claim 6:15,23 7:5,22 | 16:1 19:19 21:21 | | 153:13 154:2 | 152:15 153:13 | check 215:25 | 12:15 15:12,16 | 25:4 49:19 83:1 | | 158:22 167:14 | 155:14,24 170:2 | checked 177:1 | 16:4,23 20:10 | 83:25 101:6 106:7 | | 171:16 172:12 | 172:25 173:7,11 | cherrypicking
146:2 | 25:9 26:2,4 32:7 | 140:3 169:16 | | 173:20 174:4,14 | 173:16 185:1 | chief 205:16 206:25 | 32:25 34:3,5,14 | 183:12 184:3,16 | | 177:2 180:12,13 | 191:8 194:4 | chief 207:1 209:18 | 45:2,16,18 48:15 | clearly 4:2 11:20 | | 185:15 186:11 | 195:19,22 209:23 | 210:1 | 48:16 50:10,21,23 | 12:22 15:9,21 | | 189:9,10,25 | cause/malicious
145:17 | child 11:16 66:16 | 66:8 71:13 80:10 | 19:9 30:6 33:25 | | 203:7 206:1 | caused 8:15 26:14 | chief's 206:19 | 80:18 81:9,9 87:8 | 36:18 72:9 75:8 | | 209:23 213:24 | 44:11 45:2,16 | child 11:16 66:16 | 107:25 108:3,13 | 118:18,18 121:4 | | 214:3 215:10,11 | 46:6 83:23 89:3 | 150:22 156:23 | 108:18 115:7 | 121:22 148:22 | | 219:16 220:8,10 | causing 7:15 | 178:21 179:7,8,13 | 116:14 121:2,20 | 166:10 178:3,8,16 | | 221:16,24 222:9 | caution 155:20 | 180:8 233:4 | 123:10 131:7 | 190:9 223:13 | | 224:12,14 229:6 | cautiously 99:7 | children 66:5,9,20 | 132:19 133:25 | 234:12 | | cases 13:8,9 16:25 | caveat 61:3 161:18 | 66:23 71:24 79:1 | 134:5 140:7,20 | clerked 173:4 | | 17:10 18:9,16,17 | 225:19 | 79:18 120:19 | 149:4 165:2 | client 15:1 19:20 | | 20:14 23:7 25:14 | | | 180:16 191:25 | 20:1 21:22 26:10 | | 27:12 37:15 38:11 | 234:19 235:6 | 43:17 44:3 47:8 | 198:23 208:24 | 178:4 180:20 | | -------------------------- | ------------------------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | | 38:21 39:6,14,22 | comfort 60:25 | 47:22 67:19,20,24 | 211:2 234:2 | 215:17 225:2,8 | | 73:6 74:12,20,23 | 103:10 105:13 | 68:12,23 71:21 | conclude 43:13 | considerations | | 74:24 75:14 76:11 | 138:16 | 72:14 74:3 82:21 | 178:10 | 13:16 | | 82:4 99:15 119:23 | comfortable 59:14 | 84:4,14,25 85:13 | concluded 14:13 | considered 221:4 | | 146:21 151:13 | 102:24 166:14 | 87:21 107:12 | 65:4 237:6 | considering 13:1 | | 153:25 163:10 | coming 43:5 59:7 | 109:21 115:6,22 | concludes 25:11 | 113:4 | | 167:3 171:18,19 | 107:7,8 111:22 | 129:4 136:20 | conclusion 15:10 | consistent 61:3 | | 171:22 173:8,10 | 148:23 | 137:6 139:4,6,7 | 67:4 119:10 | 219:6 | | 174:2 193:23 | commenced 16:9 | 139:13,15,22 | 145:20 155:10 | conspiracy 17:18 | | 199:12 207:23 | 42:23 74:13 | 142:4 145:23 | 166:3 | constitute 34:13 | | 211:13 220:16 | commencement | 146:3 162:21 | conclusive 120:2 | 50:1 51:17 52:8 | | 224:11,19 226:23 | 5:25 7:11,16 | 184:4,8 206:22 | conclusively 117:9 | 53:4 85:17 | | 233:18,22 | commences 87:11 | complaints 156:21 | 124:7 | constituted 28:4 | | client's 64:18,23 | comment 86:4 | 177:22 186:21 | concrete 190:3 | Constitution 49:16 | | 74:3 76:24 77:6 | 102:18 115:15 | 192:23 | concurrent 117:23 | 49:17 52:14,16 | | 82:3 146:17 161:2 | 134:13 176:4 | complete 75:2 | 118:10,11 | constitutional 10:20 | | 161:25 167:16 | 206:16 210:8 | completed 228:16 | concurring 22:21 | 24:9,11 52:20 | | clients 20:17 37:16 | commentary 83:6 | completely 14:13 | condemnation | constitutionally | | 64:23 65:24 70:24 | comments 155:5 | 36:5 49:9 53:14 | 77:24 | 117:24 | | 71:13,18 76:20 | 177:9 222:24 | 64:24 75:12 96:12 | conditions 177:10 | constructive 174:8 | | 77:12 80:16 134:2 | commission 66:17 | 97:11 129:1 | conduct 21:17 | constructively 78:3 | | 167:4 179:3 | 212:17 | compliance 208:2 | 33:18 67:16 70:15 | 131:2 154:12 | | close 194:21 | commit 7:2,3 | complication 128:6 | 72:3 79:20 80:23 | construed 35:19 | | close-out 214:22 | 120:15 234:14 | complies 98:16 | 155:7 157:17,21 | 51:6 119:14 130:8 | | closely 33:21 195:4 | committing 99:14 | comply 101:22 | 183:18 | contact 157:18 | | 196:22 | common-sense | component 137:18 | conducted 217:14 | 177:14 201:22 | | club 145:13 | 37:17 | 137:22,24 156:4 | confession 49:24 | contacting 39:25 | | co-counsel 93:17 | commonly 79:14 | 206:1 | 52:8,25 54:4 | contacts 204:12 | | co-exist 108:21 | community 20:8 | comprehend 31:9 | confidence 112:9 | contained 99:23 | | coalesce 108:21 | 201:25 | comprise 222:10 | 230:8 | containing 69:10 | | code 150:8,19 151:1 | companies 69:15 | comprises 226:6 | confined 88:16 | contemplate 84:9 | | 151:2 | 205:2 | compromising | confirm 60:7 | contemplated 87:11 | | cogent 179:24 | company 200:7 | 190:21 | confirmed 78:25 | contend 46:2 | | coin 144:9 | compared 143:16 | concealed 116:16 | confirming 54:7 | 165:24,24 232:23 | | colloquy 175:7 | compares 232:11 | concede 58:1 | confusing 31:3 | contending 227:6 | | 179:1,4 200:19,23 | compel 94:10 | conceded 25:20 | 209:15 | contention 154:18 | | colorable 24:23 | 163:18 164:1 | 54:3 76:23 83:9 | confusion 136:17 | contents 199:2 | | column 180:1 | 230:22 235:25 | concedes 75:24 | 225:1 233:13 | contested 60:5 | | combination 133:12 | compelling 128:23 | 76:21 | congratulate 114:2 | 143:13 | | come 12:1 24:22 | 132:3 | conceding 33:2,2 | conjunction 136:14 | context 3:18 22:13 | | 29:8 37:10 43:7 | compensate 44:25 | conceivable 83:12 | 136:16 | 23:3 24:6,15 25:3 | | 44:18 61:15 104:6 | compensatory | 159:3 | conjuring 87:6 | 56:10 60:12,20 | | 114:21 117:15 | 26:14 | conceivably 35:19 | connected 89:19,23 | 61:7 79:5 131:20 | | 141:12 145:4,9,15 | competing 159:22 | conceive 36:2 | 89:25 90:8 194:2 | 161:20 162:3 | | 169:6 184:7 185:6 | compilation 170:11 | concern 14:22 21:7 | connecting 138:3 | 163:20 172:5 | | 199:23 201:7 | 224:17 | 21:15,18 22:2,14 | connection 37:25 | 193:18 228:2 | | 208:5 226:1 | compiled 98:18 | 88:18 108:22 | 68:21 173:13 | 234:18 | | 227:21 | 226:8 | 158:1 180:15,17 | 193:10 229:22 | continuation 45:4 | | comedy 204:25 | complain 185:4 | 234:18 | consent 78:4 | 45:18,22 46:5,15 | | comes 6:3 17:11 | complained 45:5 | concerned 34:16 | consequences | 55:21 89:5 140:20 | | 43:12 56:9 60:5 | complaint 3:25 4:5 | 48:8 52:1,9 78:1 | 132:15 133:21 | continue 43:8 46:4 | | 79:6 100:19 | 5:9 6:6,25 7:2,19 | 84:17 92:1 128:13 | conserving 57:5 | 46:13 82:18 96:1 | | 101:10 143:20 | 7:22 8:15,20 9:3 | 132:23 168:5 | consider 44:21 | 102:23 105:15 | | 145:24 154:17 | 9:25 10:12 25:10 | 170:3 172:14 | 99:12 122:18 | 180:17 | | 180:16 191:11,13 | 26:7 31:12,13,18 | 174:12 | 155:8,18 226:19 | continued 16:9,10 | | 203:3,3 225:3 | 31:19 37:5 40:23 | concerning 97:5 | consideration 85:15 | 42:23 43:1,4 46:9 | | 229:20,23 230:3 | 41:20 42:9,25 | 98:1 102:9 106:20 | 129:8 145:24 | 46:18 87:13 91:24 | | continues 68:8 | 132:20 138:8,21 | 69:23 70:16 72:17 | 182:4 183:22 | 76:3 108:22 | | -------------------------- | ------------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------------- | --------------------------- | | continuing 90:15 | 155:16 207:18 | 72:20 73:4,12 | 185:24 187:1,7,25 | created 17:18 | | 228:21 | 216:17 | 74:22 75:2,6 77:7 | 188:4,10,14,16,25 | creating 189:18 | | Contract 211:15 | count 11:9 19:4 | 77:14,22 78:18 | 189:4,11,20 190:9 | creativity 35:7 | | contractor 199:11 | 21:1 42:9 177:3 | 79:3,12,24 81:2 | 192:14 193:17 | credibility 141:2 | | contractual 230:8 | 179:5 | 81:17,23 82:17,23 | 194:17 196:12 | 175:22 195:12 | | contradicts 72:13 | counter- 110:5 | 82:24 84:1,5,16 | 197:9,10,14,21 | credit 177:8 | | contrary 18:16 50:3 | 110:6 | 85:1,11,21 86:3,6 | 198:4,8,13,19 | crime 75:6 97:14,22 | | 53:9 | | 86:7,12 87:3,23 | 199:7,14,15,19,21 | 97:23 108:13 | | Contrast 44:13 | counter-plaintiff | 88:1,1,13 89:8 | 199:22 200:9,13 | 119:10,15 120:2 | | contributing 155:9 | 3:22 36:4 107:1 | 90:20,23 91:2,9 | 200:16 201:20 | 120:23 133:8 | | contributions | | 91:12 92:14 93:2 | 202:3,6 203:2,10 | 150:22 175:18 | | 231:21 | 138:8 | 93:20 95:1 96:1,6 | 203:13,18,22 | 190:23 219:2 | | control 25:19,21 | counter-pleading | 96:12,22 97:8,16 | 204:2,5,9,16,20 | 220:7 221:15 | | 201:25 208:13,16 | 14:17 | 97:17 99:20 100:5 | 205:22 206:4 | 222:8 226:5 | | controversy 187:12 | counts 18:1,2 | 100:7 102:12,22 | 207:8,14 209:5,13 | crimes 37:21 120:7 | | convenience 103:6 | 104:22 | 103:8,17 104:5,18 | 209:15 210:2,11 | 120:9,15 150:14 | | convert 18:6 19:3 | County 1:2 95:2 | 104:24 105:1,4,5 | 210:25 211:4,18 | 156:16 175:12 | | 19:24,25 21:24 | 171:20 173:25 | 105:6,21 106:7 | 211:22,25 212:4,7 | 176:8 | | converted 20:8 | 238:5 | 107:5,9 108:23 | 212:11,12,23 | criminal 5:21 6:3,4 | | convicted 17:21 | couple 30:15,23 | 109:20 111:2,11 | 213:1,22 214:2,8 | 6:6 16:7 21:17,20 | | 37:21 175:17 | 33:9 40:14 58:16 | 111:23 112:1,8 | 214:15,21 215:8 | 42:21 81:8 97:5 | | 179:11 203:21 | 92:7 115:3 138:11 | 113:2,3,14 114:13 | 215:13,21 216:7 | 98:14 99:2,6 | | conviction 175:3,7 | course 9:17 43:12 | 115:2,12,19 | 217:1,4,9,23 | 100:24 101:1,4 | | 175:12 176:12 | 74:1 128:15 | 117:15,21 118:9 | 218:17 219:13,19 | 102:25 103:4,15 | | convictions 218:4 | 163:25 169:16 | 118:17 119:12,19 | 220:11 222:2,21 | 109:11 117:23 | | convincing 49:19 | court 1:1 3:1,7,12 | 122:2,21 124:21 | 222:25 223:11 | 118:11 120:6 | | coordinated 192:11 | 4:7,8,9,13,14,15 | 125:15 126:5,11 | 225:6,15,25 | 121:7,8,22,25 | | copies 68:6 69:9 | 4:17,18,21,22,25 | 126:24 127:10,13 | 226:16 227:1,14 | 131:15 150:12,21 | | 167:19 198:11 | 5:2,7,13,14,17,19 | 127:25 128:23 | 227:21 228:3,9 | 151:6 152:18 | | 218:3 | 5:23 6:9 7:1,9,9 | 132:7,14,25 133:5 | 229:12 230:21,24 | 153:18 154:2 | | copy 62:19,24 | 7:24 8:22 10:10 | 133:16,19,23 | 231:14,16,17 | 157:19 167:12,13 | | 104:22 153:21 | 10:10,14,19 11:1 | 134:8,18 135:9,10 | 232:2,14,15 233:5 | 168:18,25 169:7 | | 176:12 179:19 | 11:4,9,20 12:8,12 | 135:11,16,19,24 | 233:23 234:16 | 169:17,17 171:16 | | 193:11 204:6 | 12:22 14:6,15,11 | 136:3,7,14,21 | 235:5,11,11,17,21 | 171:21 172:1,2,5 | | 214:5 | 15:17 16:19 18:17 | 137:1,4 140:9,16 | 236:16 237:2 | 172:12,19 173:2,4 | | corner 205:1 | 18:20 20:2,18,20 | 141:9,20 143:17 | 238:1 | 173:24,24 174:1,5 | | cornerstones 99:4 | 22:12 23:14 24:5 | 143:23 146:5,14 | Court's 51:22 54:8 | 175:7 177:22 | | corporations | 24:10 25:16 27:2 | 146:19,24 148:19 | 78:11,20 80:2 | 179:17 184:17 | | 164:25 | 29:8,11 30:10,15 | 149:1,18,24 | 100:17 105:23 | 191:6 201:23 | | correct 4:20 28:7 | 30:18,25 31:7 | 151:15,18,21 | 114:20 115:16 | 203:7 208:18 | | 32:18 59:20 61:24 | 32:12,15,18,21 | 152:14,19 153:4 | 127:16 131:1 | 211:2 214:22 | | 62:8 119:15 122:4 | 33:8,20,25 37:12 | 153:21 154:3,11 | 132:22,25 135:5 | 218:13 219:4 | | 126:1 149:16,17 | 38:7,18 39:18 | 154:15 157:12 | 141:7,10,13 | critical 13:15 100:5 | | 176:13 205:20 | 40:11 41:9,25 | 158:17,19 160:15 | 143:25 158:1 | 107:9 131:15,19 | | 217:3 | 42:2,6,20 43:3,3 | 161:7,17 162:18 | 188:6 215:17 | 134:17 135:3 | | correctly 91:9 | 44:17 45:18,25 | 162:22 163:13 | 221:19 223:2 | 153:7 | | corresponding | 46:19,24 47:5,10 | 164:10,13,23 | 228:2 | criticism 115:16 | | 118:13 | 47:25 48:2,3,7,12 | 165:4,16 166:14 | courthouse 201:16 | criticize 134:13 | | corroborated | 49:3 50:6,18 51:3 | 166:19,21,24 | courtroom 77:25 | criticized 135:10 | | 161:16 | 51:8 52:9 53:2,6 | 167:5,18,25 | 83:5 89:16,25 | crystal 19:18 | | corroborative | 53:18,22 54:12 | 168:21 170:3 | 90:10 184:2 | cull 224:20 225:12 | | 207:11 | 55:1,15,20 56:5 | 171:1,13 172:13 | 185:25 201:14 | culled 220:1 221:6 | | costly 124:14 | 57:14 58:16 60:3 | 172:21 173:5,19 | courts 15:14 59:24 | 223:21 224:10 | | counsel 9:12 10:6 | 61:1,8,14,20,25 | 173:22 174:6,12 | 61:5 114:18 | 228:11 | | 10:16 53:19 55:3 | 62:16 63:2,7,10 | 174:25 175:21 | 117:19 131:15 | culpable 166:1 | | 57:13 60:15 70:17 | 63:17,21 64:1,4,7 | 176:23 177:16 | covered 97:6 164:5 | custodian 162:8 | | 94:6 105:7 122:24 | 65:1 66:14 67:22 | 179:9 180:7,11,15 | covers 120:12 | cutting 135:21 | | 129:9,20 130:25 | 68:1,3,16 69:1,17 | 181:3,11,15 182:2 | create 25:23 39:3 | CVRA 97:3,7,14,21 | | 98:1 106:9 111:8
111:18 125:14
215:11 220:18 | D
D 1:22 95:22 238:7
238:16
D-E-B-R-I-N-C-...
4:19
D3 69:9,13
daily 147:13
damage 19:3 34:14
42:12 44:1,11
45:1 46:6 83:23
108:8 165:2
205:14
damaged 113:9,10
damages 8:16 18:12
18:13 23:19 24:7
24:15 25:3 26:15
34:3,7,12,16,19
37:3 40:25 41:7,8
41:23 44:8,16,19
44:21 45:22 47:8
47:9 49:19 51:11
51:17 52:6,17
53:21 89:3 163:7
182:24 185:19
193:19 194:25
195:5 202:23,25
205:25 227:22
232:22 234:15
danger 81:3 82:7
233:12
DARREN 2:16,17
data 69:25
date 1:16 92:12
95:16 132:8
dated 158:20
205:21 209:12
212:9 213:2 216:1
216:2 238:13
Daubert 58:25 59:2
59:3
daughter-in-law
92:12
DAVID 2:9
day 46:16,17 82:5
85:3 112:14
114:12 137:7
144:13 147:14
184:2 224:2 237:2
238:13
days 96:10 116:3
216:10 219:9
221:7,9 224:19
225:22,23 226:4,9
226:10,14
DCA 5:24 90:21,22 | dead 15:5 16:2
178:20
deal 35:14 84:19
86:2 126:7,20
159:5 162:23
165:4 181:9
200:21 224:1
231:4 232:4
235:15
dealing 4:8 10:21
54:14 60:1 88:17
107:19 134:24
189:23 208:12
221:5 223:14,15
deals 36:21
dealt 230:25
Debbie 175:9
Debrincat 4:18 8:23
9:9 15:3,4 16:5,17
16:22 18:22 25:6
25:11,17,19,23
26:17,22 73:10,11
73:21 88:3,15
December 1:16
87:21 95:16 115:8
115:22 129:12,17
129:18 132:8
172:21 238:13
decide 41:14 74:10
126:18 142:15,24
decided 90:21
133:11
decision 16:18
36:25 37:18 41:12
41:16 47:13,20
50:5,7 53:12 60:7
60:8,21 61:8
86:24 91:9 109:18
127:10 135:5
137:20,25 140:16
140:22 142:10,22
143:4,6 179:24
decision-making
144:7
decisional 52:19
decisions 108:11
174:21 191:21,22
declined 227:12
Dee 187:11
Deeds 164:10,11
deeper 19:7
defamation 3:20 7:3
8:16 9:7,15 10:18
10:24 12:19 16:23
17:4 18:1,4,8,9
19:4,8,8 20:25
22:18 23:21 26:2
26:4 35:1,4,14,16
35:18,20 44:13 | 50:10,12,13,16,21
50:22 51:7,19,24
53:16 75:7,10
86:21 107:25
108:3 134:4 140:4
140:4,8,12 173:15
defamatory 9:17
17:3 22:17 37:2
73:25 193:20
defaming 8:6,7,11
8:15,20 9:1
defaming-words
12:5
defend 10:15 26:10
32:6 110:10,11
114:5,16 116:23
116:24 125:3,4
182:22 227:12
defendant 2:2 7:11
23:15 32:24 42:15
44:20 87:13
150:21 192:24
220:23
Defendant/Count...
2:6
defendants 110:9
130:5
Defendants/Count...
1:9 95:9
defended 130:23
defending 10:9
110:8 147:7
defense 10:7 12:17
12:18,20 21:5
23:13,18,20,22
24:2,3,8,12 25:5
34:4,14 35:23
36:20,21 37:11
43:5 48:8,22 49:3
49:12 50:1,8
51:20,25 52:22
54:1 56:25 57:17
67:9 68:6 80:9
83:14 99:6 101:1
109:15,16 117:17
123:22 129:23
165:22 166:5
172:4,19 221:14
228:24 229:2,5
defenses 3:5,17,20
7:21 9:6,21 10:2,4
10:8,18,20 13:4
13:14 14:1,4,11
14:14 17:4 18:8
19:9 21:2 23:8,11
23:12,25 26:5
27:8,24 28:5,8,16
29:3 34:25 35:3
35:13 40:18 48:6 | 49:8 50:9,13,14
50:15 53:3,5,7
75:10 188:21
192:19
defer 153:4 179:22
180:19 193:2
200:2 204:2 214:8
229:24
deferred 181:12
186:8 232:2
deferring 166:15
167:1
defined 18:21 43:2
69:22 83:20
definition 173:20
definitive 218:9
defrauded 69:15
200:8
degree 123:21 177:4
177:5 208:13,16
228:11 230:15
delay 100:9 123:15
123:17 124:11
133:2
delaying 121:19
delight 61:5
deliver 131:9
Deliveries 204:18
delivery 204:23
demonstrate 8:14
31:20 40:24
139:16 147:4
denial 14:19 49:24
56:25
denied 126:12 135:8
186:10
denies 134:19
DENNEY 2:7
Dennison 197:3
Dennison's 197:3
deny 13:21 26:20
76:22 124:18
denying 75:9 201:4
department 197:24
204:8 205:17
206:17 209:25,25
218:1,19 231:22
depending 153:1
188:19 189:20,22
depends 45:6 179:9
depicting 231:10
deposed 70:17,20
deposing 214:1
deposition 7:25 8:1
18:10 43:18 51:3
67:7,25 68:19
70:19 75:25 83:15
104:1 113:25
157:9 163:25 | 203:17 213:23
215:20 218:20
228:6 229:22
234:1
depositions 66:25
70:6 71:5 147:18
208:20
deprived 24:16
Dershowitz 214:1
Dershowitz's 213:2
213:23
describe 93:7
described 191:8
197:2 210:19
221:22 225:19
description 161:5
descriptions 161:13
designated 68:6
designation 177:11
177:18 197:17
designed 11:5 18:22
114:18
desire 132:1
despite 19:20
125:17,18 159:24
224:13
detail 51:1 53:8
135:2
detailed 135:13
161:13
Detective 218:20
determination 15:6
42:18 57:21 58:8
74:18 127:17
137:10 143:25
144:17 169:25
178:17 230:13
determine 6:21
74:22 142:14
146:4 186:6
192:17
determined 142:25
determining 113:4
developed 121:10
179:24
develops 231:17
devoted 228:24
devoting 229:2
difference 29:18
38:19 192:12
different 26:7 29:5
29:5,6 44:15
47:16 84:20 89:6
89:11 108:24
141:24 160:7
162:2 200:17
205:1 207:20
213:7 216:3
differently 141:23 | | ---------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | ---------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | difficult 68:5 157:16 | 220:7 | 225:12 228:10 | 195:21 197:2 | 219:3 225:10 | | --------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------- | | difficulty 206:14 | discussions 100:13 | 230:7 | 200:20 202:8 | 226:25 233:16 | | digest 60:11 | dishonesty 175:18 | Doe 70:22 83:3 98:5 | 204:11 205:6,8 | 7:25 11:9 | | dignitaries 69:11 | dismissal 107:17 | 102:7,14 105:16 | 209:6 210:5,21 | 33:16 48:13 50:11 | | dignity 83:5 | 227:9 | 128:5 154:8 158:3 | 211:1 214:10,23 | 50:24 53:18 56:4 | | diligence 168:5 | dismissed 117:5 | 158:4 165:9 | 216:23 219:5,22 | 62:10 67:15 73:17 | | 195:25 205:9 | 226:23 229:1 | 186:22 215:9 | 231:9 | 77:11 80:6,22 | | direct 232:9 | dismisses 11:9 | doing 7:20 36:6 | early 125:11,13 | 138:21 155:7 | | directed 69:1 | dispel 144:14 | 39:24 65:16 66:22 | easily 87:17 | 156:21 179:3 | | 213:16 | disposition 120:9 | 82:16 85:22 97:20 | easy 39:5 | 191:20,22 195:25 | | directing 229:12 | 124:2 | 99:7 110:24 114:1 | eaten 224:1 | 205:9 209:2 | | directly 48:20 50:4 | disproportionate 123:21 | 114:20 120:18 | Edward's 62:25 | 226:15 227:18 | | 72:13 81:15 | disprove 175:24 | 135:11 157:13,13 | 119:23 | 228:24 | | 179:16 192:3 | dispute 41:11 74:19 | 167:11 171:25 | 1:8 8:9 | Edwards's 216:17 | | directs 229:9 | 90:4 | 185:11 191:17 | 12:10,13 19:13 | effect 52:11 88:19 | | disagree 60:9 | | 206:14 223:8,10 | 20:11,13 31:10 | efficient 58:23 | | disagreement 86:15 | disputed 142:10,12 | Dollar 211:17 | 32:7,13,16,23 | effort 27:23 67:3 | | 138:7 159:24 | 144:19,22 | Donald 1:18 95:18 | 33:14 34:6,20 | 70:7 190:14 | | 183:25 | disregard 49:22 | donation 196:4 | 37:6,23 38:3,25 | efforts 13:9 | | disallowing 59:3 | dissemination 8:6 | door 11:24 167:2 | 39:11 46:7 49:6 | eight 14:4,9 113:22 | | disclose 117:1 | dissolving 75:21 | dots 138:3 | 49:18,21 50:20 | 219:21 226:6 | | 202:15 | distance 17:12 | dovetail 129:1 | 51:13 52:2 53:20 | eight-year 224:24 | | disclosed 164:8 | distinct 172:17 | Dr 8:2 194:8 197:3 | 54:8,25 64:22 | Eighteen 162:20 | | disclosure 85:14 | distinction 34:23 | draft 182:8,10 | 65:4,7,14,18 67:4 | eighth 23:11,20 | | 207:22 | 39:21 40:5,10 | 193:15 | 67:8 68:20 69:22 | 50:8 129:14 | | disclosures 164:5 | 51:23 159:11 | draw 40:10 141:3 | 70:14,17,20,21,25 | Eighty-nine 215:4 | | 202:21 | 169:14 187:15 | 151:23 163:22 | 72:3,15 75:21,23 | Eighty-six 214:21 | | disconnect 138:23 | distinguish 159:6 | 166:3 | 76:2,4,15,21,21 | Eighty-two 212:16 | | discover 149:7 | 170:6 | drawn 178:12 | 76:23 77:18 78:8 | either 21:1,24 23:3 | | 154:22 | distinguished 175:25 | draws 47:17 | 78:21 79:19 80:16 | 25:25 28:2 41:21 | | discovered 69:6 | distress 17:6 | dream 14:10 | 83:20 84:8 89:4 | 48:20 53:9 60:6 | | discovery 14:13,16 | distress 17:6 | driving 118:15 | 89:18,23 95:8 | 68:1 77:24 78:3 | | 65:6,11,14,20 | district 15:14 17:13 | drunk 118:15 | 98:4,24 100:19 | 81:14 92:20 | | 67:3,16,17 70:15 | 98:13 120:10,16 | due 24:6,16,21 25:2 | 104:14 106:24,25 | 119:20 133:3 | | 72:4,7 77:10,20 | 121:24 127:6 | 52:16,18 92:12 | 107:15,23 108:9 | 138:24 142:25 | | 78:10,22 79:21 | 135:11 173:5 | 94:13 99:5 128:7 | 108:12,17 109:6 | 143:24 166:6,7 | | 148:2 149:3,8 | division 5:24 189:9 | DUI-type 118:17 | 109:12 111:5,17 | 187:11 189:3 | | 152:25 163:10,11 | Dixie 1:17 95:17 | duplicate 220:9 | 111:19 113:9,16 | 190:20 | | 168:5 171:15 | DNA 177:12 | 221:23 | 113:24 114:12 | elaborate 83:18 | | 172:11 189:17,21 | docket 222:7,10 | duplication 215:23 | 116:5,15 117:3 | element 6:13 15:19 | | 213:12,16 227:17 | 224:23 | 215:24 | 122:11,20 123:10 | 16:6 25:8 26:13 | | discretion 29:9 | document 63:6 87:9 | duplicative 203:22 | 124:2,5 128:6 | 34:2,16 42:3,4,7 | | discuss 56:15 96:21 | 162:2 204:17 | DVD 200:19 | 130:5 133:2,24 | 42:17,18 144:6 | | 160:1 235:7 | 211:12 212:20,22 | | 134:2,17 139:11 | elements 5:4,13,14 | | discussed 29:14 | | | 139:15 144:13,25 | 5:17,18 8:17 12:4 | | 41:19 74:15 79:4 | documentation 168:10 225:9 | | 145:4 147:17 | 15:21 16:11 18:21 | | 113:5 128:21 | 227:16 | E.W 70:22 83:3 | 149:5 152:22 | 19:3 25:24 26:3 | | 151:1 164:18 | documented 224:6 | 102:14 104:2 | 154:9,19 155:10 | 43:22,23 100:7 | | 168:7,9,23 169:11 | 224:7 | 128:5 154:8 157:9 | 155:25 159:18 | 130:19 143:21 | | 175:14 205:8 | documents 104:25 | 158:2,4 180:8 | 160:2 161:24 | 213:11 | | 215:14,15 216:22 | documents 104:25 | 186:21 | 167:4 168:4,25 | elevator 110:7 | | discussing 235:8 | 160:3,19 173:10 | E.W.'s 180:13 | 169:19 170:12,16 | eliminated 17:25 | | discussion 41:7 | 175:2,5,20 196:3 | earlier 50:3 59:22 | 173:13 180:3 | 46:16 | | 62:22 91:11 96:2 | 201:24 205:13 | 66:13 79:5 92:17 | 182:12 183:20 | Elmo 72:19 127:24 | | 135:23 154:4 | 208:7 211:4 212:1 | 117:25 128:24 | 184:25 186:22 | emails 200:4,12 | | 159:6 160:16 | 212:14 218:18 | 129:6 130:2 | 187:9 190:12,20 | 217:16 | | 163:17 175:22 | 219:8,23 220:22 | 133:24 150:9 | 190:24 194:2 | emotional 17:6 | | 176:6 209:14 | 221:2 223:20,21 | 166:17 168:2 | 198:22 207:6,7 | 185:18 | | | 223:23,25 224:20 | 176:5 190:8 | 208:13 213:10 | empathy 128:14 | | emphasize 81:12 | 120:8 121:5,17 | 232:24 233:4 | 141:25 152:4 | 71:17 | | -------------------------- | ------------------------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | | emphasized 33:24 | 122:8,24 125:2,22 | equivocating | 164:4 233:15 | exists 33:6 58:9 | | 132:21 134:8 | 125:24 126:14 | 181:21,23 | examples 39:5 | 148:7 | | employ 205:10 | 129:4,9,9,19 | equivocation 169:4 | 62:13 85:18 134:3 | exonerating 124:2 | | employed 213:10 | 130:25 132:20 | 182:5 | excellent 94:14 | expanded 65:9 | | employment 151:24 | 133:25 134:3,11 | error 209:15 | excepted 73:24 | expect 93:10 211:10 | | 152:3,5 213:15 | 138:6,9 140:18 | escape 191:3,5 | exception 4:10,11 | 220:23 | | encloses 209:23 | 144:15 147:3,19 | especially 28:13 | 90:14,14 195:7 | expected 100:7 | | encountered 113:20 | 149:4 153:2,19 | espoused 50:4 | 234:10 | expecting 93:11 | | ended 128:9 | 154:18 155:8,22 | ESQUIRE 2:4,5,9,9 | exceptional 91:7 | expeditious 60:18 | | ends 101:24 | 156:1,8 157:23,25 | 2:13,17 | excerpts 67:11 | expend 26:10 | | enforcement 156:16 | 158:5 159:7 165:1 | essence 35:11 | 215:20 | experience 94:13 | | 196:5 217:14 | 165:19 169:22,24 | 168:15 | excess 163:12 | 101:10 128:12 | | engage 12:24 | 170:19,20 171:15 | essential 35:9 | excessive 168:11 | experienced 123:17 | | engaged 65:14 | 172:10 176:7,17 | essentially 17:17 | excuse 19:11 20:19 | expert 7:25 8:4,14 | | 172:2 | 177:25 180:9,10 | 23:15 27:13 37:13 | 39:15 66:12 97:19 | 8:19,25 18:12 | | engages 20:6 | 182:15,22 183:8 | 60:1 138:15 183:1 | 102:12 115:12 | 89:2 143:14 | | engaging 157:20 | 187:21 190:12,19 | establish 41:23 | executed 161:2 | 145:10 193:20 | | enquote 71:16 | 191:25 192:24 | 98:10 147:24 | executive 13:10 | 197:4 | | ensuring 58:22 | 193:4 194:20 | established 24:20 | 22:11 | expert's 33:13 51:1 | | entailed 131:3 | 195:17,20,23 | 26:25 52:4 53:10 | exemplar 108:20 | experts 14:17 19:17 | | enter 111:9 132:24 | 200:5 201:23,24 | 198:7 | 201:9 | 141:2 | | entered 201:22 | 203:11 205:24 | estate 17:17 | exemplars 63:11 | explain 27:2 65:19 | | 219:15 | 206:23,24 207:6,9 | estimate 101:2 | exempted 9:13,19 | 78:22 136:24 | | Entertainment | 208:12,14,16 | et 177:14 | exemption 47:12 | 203:25 211:8 | | 204:25 | 214:19 215:18 | ethical 208:2 | 90:17,19 | explained 12:19 | | enthusiasm 125:23 | 217:18 218:4 | evaluation 198:24 | exercise 29:9 160:23 | 125:15 174:25 | | entire 73:14 85:14 | 219:10,15 220:21 | eve 14:12 117:4 | exercising 34:12 | explaining 138:15 | | entirely 25:23 26:7 | 220:24 221:13 | event 166:12 | 208:14,17 | explanation 14:9 | | 26:18 49:10 53:14 | 224:13 227:11 | eventually 163:16 | exhibit 56:3,4 57:12 | 26:21 | | 84:20 169:21 | 229:18,21 230:1 | evidence 39:16 | 57:23 60:5 62:4 | exploitation 80:4 | | entirety 224:22 | 230:16 232:6,10 | 44:24 45:2 49:20 | 62:11,15,25 63:23 | expose 191:25 | | entitled 133:4 | 234:2 235:1 | 52:11 58:7 65:12 | 63:24 64:15 73:14 | exposure 121:8,22 | | 172:12 | Epstein's 21:17 | 66:15,19 67:10,13 | 84:11 149:11 | 121:25 122:10 | | entries 171:4 222:8 | 24:6 33:18 34:18 | 72:8,11 79:17 | 161:23 162:12,14 | 123:8 130:4,7,15 | | 222:10 224:23 | 56:25 60:15 61:22 | 92:16 117:7 120:7 | 167:22 193:13 | 131:7 230:16 | | entry 159:15 | 64:10 69:7 70:18 | 127:3,19 135:17 | 194:10 199:2 | expressed 14:22 | | enumerated 98:15 | 70:24 71:11,13 | 140:23 141:4,23 | 200:7 204:7 | 104:3 | | Epstein 1:5 2:11,15 | 76:13 81:21 83:14 | 146:7,11 150:8,13 | 207:21 217:6,21 | expressly 66:14 | | 11:15 20:23 24:16 | 87:20 98:8 100:20 | 150:15,19,23 | 222:4 226:7,19 | 77:22 79:16 | | 25:1,18,20 32:9 | 107:10 109:21 | 158:16 172:3 | 228:12,22 229:7 | extended 225:23 | | 32:14,17,22,25 | 110:14 136:15 | 179:20 183:13 | 233:16 | extent 83:15 85:25 | | 34:11 38:1,2 39:6 | 144:1,7 150:4 | 186:6 208:15 | exhibits 57:17 58:13 | 144:6 152:21 | | 40:7 45:13 49:20 | 153:14 162:16 | 213:20 225:14 | 59:15,17 60:2,14 | 165:20 170:13 | | 50:5 51:15 52:5 | 163:2 164:16 | 231:21 233:19 | 62:7,17 63:14 | 202:14 206:24 | | 65:3 66:6 67:2 | 167:9,10 171:9 | evidenced 127:14 | 73:15,20 77:1 | extermination | | 70:1 71:23 72:11 | 175:3 176:25 | evidencing 196:4 | 81:24 92:1 147:2 | 205:2 | | 73:18 76:14 80:10 | 181:5 190:10 | 201:24 | 158:25 160:13 | extort 190:20 | | 83:6,9,24 84:6,8 | 194:23 195:3,11 | evidentiary 56:14 | 161:19 173:21 | extra 62:18 88:14 | | 85:2,12 89:14,16 | 196:4 201:24,25 | 141:17 188:20 | 199:4 206:11 | 89:13 108:5 | | 95:5 97:3 98:15 | 202:9,12,19 | exactly 45:15 58:14 | 224:16 | extracurricular | | 98:16,18 99:1 | 204:12 205:13 | 86:13 97:9 119:19 | exist 76:5 160:5 | 157:15 | | 103:22 106:12 | 206:8 207:17 | 120:18 222:13 | existed 46:8 74:12 | extraordinarily | | 107:2,15,18,24 | 208:23 209:8 | 225:6 227:4 | 74:21 76:7 115:21 | 101:13 | | 108:4,6,15,20 | 212:2 214:12,21 | examination 197:7 | 130:16 151:12 | extraordinary | | 109:5,17 110:15 | 216:23 217:14 | example 11:8,15 | 201:5 | 158:11 | | 114:4,15,23 | 218:13 219:4 | 19:11 34:4 59:4 | existence 74:21 | extreme 114:15 | | 115:25 116:20 | 228:6 231:6 | 85:17 89:14 108:2 | 75:15 156:8 192:9 | 180:15 | | 117:14 119:8 | equivalent 232:12 | 118:12 133:23 | existing 27:19 52:21 | extremely 26:17 | | 31:3 82:19 128:12 | 21:10 29:16 31:19
31:22,23 131:5
175:22 | favorably 118:1,3
FBI 152:13 153:17
231:7 | 171:23 173:9
174:1 185:1 211:2
220:14 | 139:2 174:11
180:10 235:2,16
235:24 | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | F
fabricate 76:1,3 | factually 140:14 | February 211:16
232:7 | filed 42:11 46:13,15
47:19 55:17 62:14
43:19 55:17 62:14
63:5 73:6 75:14
75:16,19 87:21
109:5 115:8 116:1
116:2 117:3,12
121:19 124:12
125:11 126:13
129:4 130:16
131:12 132:6
137:6 140:19
144:2 170:23
172:15 174:10
182:12,14 184:25
186:22 220:9
228:25 229:18 | Firth 109:9
Fischer 4:19
fit 35:11 100:15
160:11
fits 100:11
five 8:3 14:3 61:15
91:15 93:19,22
116:11 143:4
218:18
fix 186:16
FL 123:2,4,8,13
95:23
flavor 145:22
flew 71:13
flexibility 221:25
flight 64:10,18,24
65:21 66:3,22,23
69:10,25 71:14
72:9 74:25 75:1
75:11 76:16 77:4
77:9,13,19 78:9
78:10,23,24 81:3
85:12,14 160:6
164:18 184:18
208:21 215:3
231:19
flights 70:1,23
Florida 1:2,17 4:21
15:17 16:19 18:20
22:4,12 23:13
25:16,24 37:19
41:19 49:17,25
52:4,15,21 59:1
72:5 79:13 95:2
95:17 97:17 98:3
98:13 117:19
120:10,16 121:24
137:4 173:19
238:4
Florida's 27:4 44:4
flow 115:1
flown 71:11
fluid 59:25
focus 7:17 9:22 12:3
32:9 33:10 42:2
45:6 75:3 158:3
focused 7:6 45:8
138:18 158:2
183:18 236:17
focuses 42:4 45:16
86:23
focusing 6:22 54:23
65:10 155:4
folders 208:8
folks 39:1 59:6
104:15 183:9 | | | facilities 223:18,19 | false 4:6 16:15 | falls 11:1
false 4:6 16:15 | felony 175:18 177:2
177:4,5 | feeling 88:23,23
felony 175:18 177:2
177:4,5 | | | facility 224:8 | 18:13 31:23 32:8 | fide 17:24 226:23
227:8 | fide 17:24 226:23
227:8 | files 169:17 207:12
filing 5:25 6:6,7,10
34:19 42:12 44:3
45:9,10,17 87:10
89:4 116:14
121:19 129:25
131:8 171:10
182:19 183:4
191:16 207:5,6
209:24 230:19 | | | facing 123:9 186:25
207:10 230:16 | 44:15 51:12 67:20 | field 80:8 86:10,12
109:3 110:2,11,22
114:23 124:25
125:21 129:22
133:19 134:7,11 | | | | | fact 8:21 18:22 19:2
36:12 37:6 38:9
38:10,20,24 40:6
41:5 67:6 74:14
74:17 77:17,23
78:24 79:19 84:13
85:11 94:3,14
103:2 104:1
108:17 116:19
133:9 137:11
142:16,17,18,21
143:13 144:18,19
144:22 149:6
150:13 153:12
168:7,24 169:7
171:13 175:25
176:17 178:3
180:22 199:4
206:25 213:14
227:2,7 232:18
236:19 | 83:6 17:21
138:4,25 139:1,20
139:25 140:6
142:15
falsity 9:4 10:1,12
26:6,11 31:11
41:22 47:23 49:20
49:22 82:13,20
84:24 86:18 88:10
136:19 146:3
familiar 4:23
104:10 172:7
familiarize 56:10
families 59:10 104:9
family 17:15,16,20
17:20
famous 70:2 71:10
fantasy 76:3
far 13:7 24:14 38:2
48:7 49:2 51:25
52:8 68:18 76:17
77:25 80:3 84:16
91:25 132:3
141:15 160:2
168:4 172:24
174:12 208:6
227:22
farther 125:19
fashion 28:9 60:18
107:13 137:3
155:18
fast 125:18
favor 17:24 124:8
favorable 119:10 | fifteen 227:15
FIFTEENTH 1:1
95:1
fifth 12:18 19:11,12
36:20 48:5,7
52:13 54:15 55:11
100:20 101:20,23
108:15 110:16
114:25 119:5,9
120:13,21 126:16
126:23 127:18
147:20 163:21
164:2,6 178:11
215:18 234:5
235:15 236:15
fight 125:7,9 130:12
fighting 17:17 80:11
figure 19:14,24 20:8
20:11 21:25 36:22
37:7 38:3,22
39:23 40:8 49:7
171:2
figures 69:12
file 10:22 31:13,18
31:21 47:17 90:25
105:3 116:7,8,12
125:12 144:8
150:4,7,10 151:17
151:25 152:3,5,8
159:19 168:18,25
169:7 170:11,13
170:18 171:8,8,21 | final 120:2,9 124:1
182:8
finality 105:24
133:4
financial 113:15
230:15
find 44:14,20,22
52:2 60:18 133:1
138:11 141:8,9
196:14 197:1
208:22
finding 53:8 122:22
140:16 168:2
199:19
finds 48:7 49:3 53:2
133:5
fine 51:6 164:13
185:25 203:18
219:19 225:16
finish 146:13
firm 20:13 65:8
75:20,22 88:21
128:7 183:5,20
205:11
firmer 107:22
first 6:21 12:25
13:19 15:19 16:6
27:22 33:10 42:3
49:15 88:4 92:22
93:10 96:21 97:12 | flights 70:1,23
Florida 1:2,17 4:21
15:17 16:19 18:20
22:4,12 23:13
25:16,24 37:19
41:19 49:17,25
52:4,15,21 59:1
72:5 79:13 95:2
95:17 97:17 98:3
98:13 117:19
120:10,16 121:24
137:4 173:19
238:4
Florida's 27:4 44:4
flow 115:1
flown 71:11
fluid 59:25
focus 7:17 9:22 12:3
32:9 33:10 42:2
45:6 75:3 158:3
focused 7:6 45:8
138:18 158:2
183:18 236:17
focuses 42:4 45:16
86:23
focusing 6:22 54:23
65:10 155:4
folders 208:8
folks 39:1 59:6
104:15 183:9 | | | followed 91:9 | 207:17 214:9 | give 5:19 11:7 30:15 | 93:7,20 96:11 | 233:15 237:2 | | -------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------ | | following 1:20 95:20 | front 12:5 59:12 | 39:9 46:19,22 | 98:14,21 101:1 | goose 149:6 | | follows 128:22 | 112:12 217:7 | 58:5 64:11 91:18 | 102:9 103:8 105:5 | gotten 236:20 | | food 126:17 224:1 | fruition 60:5 111:22 | 93:25 112:8 115:3 | 106:15 109:18 | govern 127:16 | | footage 195:2 | frustrated 148:20 | 143:14 161:13 | 110:18 111:15,19 | 236:5 | | footing 107:22 | frustration 148:23 | 174:16 181:25 | 112:2,9,13 113:12 | governed 126:25 | | Foray 131:17 | 148:25 | 186:3 208:23 | 113:21 119:20 | government 10:22 | | force 15:21 | full 70:2 103:7 | 221:9 236:7 | 125:5,6 126:20 | 12:16,25 13:11 | | forcing 26:1,9 | 128:16 | given 27:15 82:5 | 127:12 133:20 | 35:24 36:8 48:11 | | forefront 180:20 | fully 29:22 101:22 | 126:7 213:19 | 136:5,11,18 | 48:19,23 119:22 | | foregoing 238:9 | fundamental 38:14 | 222:17 224:1 | 138:11,12 140:10 | government's 36:13 | | forethought 154:21 | funds 26:10 | 225:22,24 228:12 | 140:11 142:3,6 | 36:15 | | forfeiture 75:18 | further 14:16 36:19 | gives 15:4 | 143:24 145:9,10 | grant 113:4 117:21 | | forget 60:12,12 | 79:4 133:2,5,15 | giving 39:25 40:1 | 147:3 148:5,12,12 | 124:19 | | form 147:17 154:23 | 160:24 163:17 | 108:2 207:25 | 149:4,18 153:4,14 | granted 186:9 | | 179:13 193:15 | 169:11 179:23 | 225:8 237:1 | 154:12 158:15 | great 40:19 84:19 | | formed 194:3 | 218:6,7,15 229:16 | glad 3:7 92:22 | 160:10 163:15,16 | 86:2 89:14 94:15 | | former 79:10 | 231:16 235:6 | 93:24 148:20 | 165:14 168:1,23 | 126:7 | | forming 170:2 | futile 14:1 27:13,20 | global 59:20 140:15 | 173:18,23 174:21 | greater 44:24 45:1 | | formula 155:21,23 | 28:6,21 29:12,15 | 140:16 170:8 | 179:22 180:4,19 | grocery 204:21 | | formulate 169:1 | 49:1 51:22 53:10 | 171:3 179:17 | 181:8,25 184:12 | grossly 79:22 | | Fort 76:9 | 54:5 | 236:15 | 185:4,10,13,14 | grounds 13:21 49:1 | | forth 5:17 17:8 41:9 | futility 14:21 27:3 | globally 85:19 | 192:5,15,20 193:2 | 108:1 | | 50:14 68:19 | 28:19 29:4 53:6 | 131:10 218:5 | 194:13,21,25 | guaranteeing 52:16 | | 131:20 | future 148:15 231:3 | go 3:12 8:24 19:7 | 195:6 196:13 | guess 29:16 135:16 | | Forty-five 196:3 | | 28:22 48:4 55:19 | 199:24 201:9 | 140:6 142:2 145:4 | | Forty-six 196:20 | | 56:6,14 57:23 | 203:12 207:25 | 174:1 194:8 213:4 | | forum 22:10,15 | | 58:12 60:15,16,24 | 208:24 210:3,11 | 233:17 | | 48:11,23 78:6 | | 73:15,20 86:24 | 216:7 218:22 | guessing 221:2 | | 81:8 | | 91:20 92:10 96:6 | 219:23 221:9,13 | 226:20 | | forward 8:24 11:13 | | 96:17 102:23 | 222:12 224:21 | guidance 82:22 | | 56:12 81:18 86:24 | | 106:16 109:25 | 226:21 227:5 | guiding 73:12 | | 98:14 109:7,12,16 | | 111:19,20 121:11 | 228:15 232:3 | guilty 99:3 125:24 | | 145:4,9 146:1 | | 121:12 134:22 | 234:23 235:2,8,15 | 126:2 176:7,18,21 | | 174:16 181:25 | | 141:18 143:4 | 236:3,4,7,9,22,23 | 177:1,23,25 178:2 | | found 31:3 50:3,7 | | 144:4 145:25 | | 178:21 179:10 | | 53:13 134:12 | | 160:23 171:2 | 92:5,25 93:16 | guts 149:11 | | 139:23,24 146:6 | | 174:15 177:20 | 96:4,8,9,18 97:12 | Guy 207:17 | | 167:10 | | 184:1 222:12 | 97:24 101:25 | | | four 8:3,8 116:8 | | 226:20,21 235:24 | 102:23 103:12,19 | | | 124:13 143:5 | | 236:18 | 105:17,19,22 | | | 218:12 226:9 | | goes 6:24 26:11,12 | 107:7 109:1 110:1 | Hafele 1:18 95:18 | | fourteen 222:22 | | 39:13 140:15 | 112:5,16 113:23 | half 93:24 | | Fourteenth 49:15 | | 143:3 170:4 177:6 | 115:2 116:22 | half-hour 231:3 | | 52:13 | | 193:13 194:24 | 118:21 119:3 | 1:22 95:22 | | fourth 5:24 17:13 | | 205:1 214:9 | 121:1 124:22,23 | 212:8 216:15 | | 17:23 70:19 90:22 | | 234:12 | 134:7,22 176:5 | 238:7,16 | | 135:11 173:4 | | going 8:25 9:2,24 | 210:7,13 219:22 | hand 108:12 199:4 | | frame 100:14 | | 10:11 11:13 12:9 | | handcuffs 114:4 | | 182:21 | | 20:5 33:22 37:2 | | handed 4:1 47:5 | | frankly 11:6 31:15 | | 43:16 44:17 46:21 | | handle 229:14 | | 35:4 117:10 | | 48:4 53:20 56:11 | | handled 102:4 | | free 30:20 31:7 47:4 | | 56:12 57:11,25 | | handling 35:4 | | 134:22 | | 58:3,25 59:14 | | hands 171:22 172:3 | | Friday 7:24 | | 62:21 64:5 73:4 | | handwritten 211:15 | | Fridovich 17:12 | | 73:13 74:5 78:2 | | 211:16 | | 18:3 | | 78:21 82:6,12 | | happen 98:6 111:4 | | friend 123:15 | | 83:4 84:11 85:5 | | 111:12 | | Fronstin 206:8 | | 89:3 91:18 92:8 | | happened 24:14 | | happening 92:13
155:9 156:13 | higher 21:1,8
highlighted 188:17
189:1,3 | 155:2 158:14
160:9,25 161:11
162:20 163:19
165:3,19 167:1,6
167:24 168:20
169:13 170:25
171:11 172:24
174:22,23 175:14
176:4,12 178:2,19
181:6,13 182:7
184:5 187:18
188:8,23 189:14
190:7 191:7,9
192:7 197:13
198:3,17 199:18
202:5 203:9,25
204:15 206:10
208:8 209:12,21
210:9,22 213:7
214:6 215:12
216:4 217:5
219:15 220:8
221:10,20 223:9
225:21 226:22
227:5,20 229:9
230:5 235:10 | 62:8,13 63:15
66:23,24 67:8
161:23 202:19
220:15 229:4
235:20
identifies 57:18
179:1
identify 54:17,19
178:1 197:16
203:20
identifying 147:25
ignore 218:23
ignored 83:13
II 95:12
illegal 8:9
illicit 70:4
image 39:3
imagine 109:20
171:19 206:4
219:20
immunity 38:12
89:20
impact 123:18
168:3 169:24
205:8
impacted 157:17
impacts 123:20
imparted 180:22
impeach 175:20
impeachment
175:13
implemented 233:7
implicate 150:7
165:10,11
implicates 175:12
implicating 109:10
implication 178:12
implosion 116:3
128:7
importance 34:23
important 43:22
73:22 96:21
106:13 132:13,14
136:10 138:5
155:13 171:9
183:23 187:5
importantly 7:13
78:2
impose 236:10
impossible 194:21
impression 33:25
51:9 186:1
improper 53:4
improvement
228:20
inability 31:8
inadequate 24:24
inadmissible 150:14
inadvertent 104:16 | 165:25 166:4
inapplicable 48:25
49:10
inappropriate
196:10
inappropriately
70:5
inception 131:8
incident 158:8
197:24
incidentally 157:6
include 16:11,12
65:9 122:13
147:11,15
included 67:20
72:13 144:24
190:14 192:8
including 19:21
66:4,20 69:22
83:19,20 126:9
128:13 161:12
177:10 208:12
incredibly 173:22
incriminator 80:2
incumbent 224:15
independent 74:4
78:25 132:16
157:3
independently
190:25 231:4
indeterminate
111:3 113:1
indicate 55:16
60:21 146:20
201:3
indicated 59:23
73:9 77:22 99:10
102:5,8 121:4
129:12,19 144:10
149:24 152:16
162:18 188:16
199:1,22 202:8
204:11 210:5
212:15 214:10
218:14 236:11
indicates 157:10
indicating 177:6
201:2
indication 58:6
indirectly 48:20
81:15
individual 18:25
21:3 82:14 105:16
133:3 141:17
146:10 159:14
169:10 171:4
192:25 212:22
216:18 224:2
235:22 | | | | | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | happening 92:13
155:9 156:13 | higher 21:1,8
highlighted 188:17
189:1,3 | 155:2 158:14
160:9,25 161:11
162:20 163:19
165:3,19 167:1,6
167:24 168:20
169:13 170:25
171:11 172:24
174:22,23 175:14
176:4,12 178:2,19
181:6,13 182:7
184:5 187:18
188:8,23 189:14
190:7 191:7,9
192:7 197:13
198:3,17 199:18
202:5 203:9,25
204:15 206:10
208:8 209:12,21
210:9,22 213:7
214:6 215:12
216:4 217:5
219:15 220:8
221:10,20 223:9
225:21 226:22
227:5,20 229:9
230:5 235:10 | 155:2 158:14
160:9,25 161:11
162:20 163:19
165:3,19 167:1,6
167:24 168:20
169:13 170:25
171:11 172:24
174:22,23 175:14
176:4,12 178:2,19
181:6,13 182:7
184:5 187:18
188:8,23 189:14
190:7 191:7,9
192:7 197:13
198:3,17 199:18
202:5 203:9,25
204:15 206:10
208:8 209:12,21
210:9,22 213:7
214:6 215:12
216:4 217:5
219:15 220:8
221:10,20 223:9
225:21 226:22
227:5,20 229:9
230:5 235:10 | 125:1,3
highly 207:4 224:25
234:14
Highway 1:17 95:17
hired 199:12
hits 194:7
Hoffman 127:8
hold 20:5 85:1
88:13 128:14
holding 15:18
hole 35:12
holiday 221:8
225:24
home 157:16 161:2
161:25 162:16
167:9,10,11,16
195:3,11 217:15
231:6
homes 162:25
homework 43:7
honestly 165:12
Honor 3:14,18 4:13
4:16,20 5:16 6:21
8:3 9:9 10:4 11:3
12:1,7 14:22
26:20 30:21 31:5
33:5,7,19 38:6,17
39:15 40:10,18
41:2,4,14 42:2
43:15 44:9 45:12
46:1,10 47:6 48:1
54:12,13,15 55:6
55:8,13 57:3,21
57:24 58:5 61:11
61:19 62:23 63:8
63:19 64:3,8,11
65:2 67:12,25
68:5,14 69:19
70:13 71:20 72:18
73:22 74:10,15,17
75:8 77:1 78:17
81:23 82:1 86:1,4
86:17 96:18 97:13
99:5,16 102:1,21
103:20 104:17
105:25 107:4
111:5 112:6,25
113:23 114:7
116:2 118:19
123:11,14 125:2
135:14 136:13
137:9 138:11
139:12 146:12,16
146:18 148:15,22
149:20 150:6,25
151:19 152:11,21
153:20 154:5 | 155:2 158:14
160:9,25 161:11
162:20 163:19
165:3,19 167:1,6
167:24 168:20
169:13 170:25
171:11 172:24
174:22,23 175:14
176:4,12 178:2,19
181:6,13 182:7
184:5 187:18
188:8,23 189:14
190:7 191:7,9
192:7 197:13
198:3,17 199:18
202:5 203:9,25
204:15 206:10
208:8 209:12,21
210:9,22 213:7
214:6 215:12
216:4 217:5
219:15 220:8
221:10,20 223:9
225:21 226:22
227:5,20 229:9
230:5 235:10 | 62:8,13 63:15
66:23,24 67:8
161:23 202:19
220:15 229:4
235:20
identifies 57:18
179:1
identify 54:17,19
178:1 197:16
203:20
identifying 147:25
ignore 218:23
ignored 83:13
II 95:12
illegal 8:9
illicit 70:4
image 39:3
imagine 109:20
171:19 206:4
219:20
immunity 38:12
89:20
impact 123:18
168:3 169:24
205:8
impacted 157:17
impacts 123:20
imparted 180:22
impeach 175:20
impeachment
175:13
implemented 233:7
implicate 150:7
165:10,11
implicates 175:12
implicating 109:10
implication 178:12
implosion 116:3
128:7
importance 34:23
important 43:22
73:22 96:21
106:13 132:13,14
136:10 138:5
155:13 171:9
183:23 187:5
importantly 7:13
78:2
impose 236:10
impossible 194:21
impression 33:25
51:9 186:1
improper 53:4
improvement
228:20
inability 31:8
inadequate 24:24
inadmissible 150:14
inadvertent 104:16 | 165:25 166:4
inapplicable 48:25
49:10
inappropriate
196:10
inappropriately
70:5
inception 131:8
incident 158:8
197:24
incidentally 157:6
include 16:11,12
65:9 122:13
147:11,15
included 67:20
72:13 144:24
190:14 192:8
including 19:21
66:4,20 69:22
83:19,20 126:9
128:13 161:12
177:10 208:12
incredibly 173:22
incriminator 80:2
incumbent 224:15
independent 74:4
78:25 132:16
157:3
independently
190:25 231:4
indeterminate
111:3 113:1
indicate 55:16
60:21 146:20
201:3
indicated 59:23
73:9 77:22 99:10
102:5,8 121:4
129:12,19 144:10
149:24 152:16
162:18 188:16
199:1,22 202:8
204:11 210:5
212:15 214:10
218:14 236:11
indicates 157:10
indicating 177:6
201:2
indication 58:6
indirectly 48:20
81:15
individual 18:25
21:3 82:14 105:16
133:3 141:17
146:10 159:14
169:10 171:4
192:25 212:22
216:18 224:2
235:22 | | individually 1:8,8
95:8,8 | insinuation 196:8
insist 93:8 | 180:8 221:3,3,4
225:13 228:13 | 84:12,16 85:20
92:16 93:19 | 153:18 155:7,22
156:1,7 157:23 | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | individuals 68:22
69:7 70:2 72:1 | inspection 195:3
inspections 223:20 | introducing 151:9
233:1 | 100:23 107:19,20
118:17 131:11 | 163:2 169:21
172:10 176:7 | | 98:5,24 102:8,10
102:15 106:3,4,17 | instance 69:23
207:21 | introduction 66:15
79:16 159:8 | 132:12 133:14
149:3 155:19 | 180:8,10 181:5
190:10,12 191:25 | | 177:24 178:7
180:3 187:10
195:8 230:4 | instances 33:15
201:12 | invalid 16:16 19:9
28:16,20 29:10 | 160:4,8 166:13
168:22 173:7 | 193:4 194:20
195:20 202:19 | | INDYKE 2:16,17 | institute 47:14
173:11 | inventory 162:6
inverting 21:16 | 174:3 175:23
179:23 190:9 | 208:11,16 212:2
217:17 218:12 | | infancy 125:14 | instituted 146:23 | investigating
206:18 207:1 | 191:9 195:6,9,12 | 227:11 232:6 | | infer 141:3 | institution 45:3,16 | investigation 6:6
151:6 152:18 | 201:1 205:14
221:5 224:9 227:1 | JEGE 214:25
jeopardy 207:10 | | inference 234:7 | instruct 140:21
173:16,19 | investigation 6:6
153:18 167:12,14 | 227:7 229:14
230:4,10 234:17 | jet 69:7 156:12,14
jobs 59:9 | | inferences 110:20
110:21 125:5
131:17 141:4
163:23 | instruction 140:25
173:16,19 | investigators 69:5
71:8 | issue-by-issue
192:16,21 | joining 7:10
joins 183:5,20
joint 190:13 | | inflame 80:7 81:16 | insufficiency 15:2 | investing 69:14
200:7 | issued 25:17 90:22
161:21 210:24 | journal 231:6
JR 2:9 | | inflammatory 70:25
153:25 180:21
233:16,21 | insufficient 14:2
135:7 | investment 71:15
investments 205:14 | issues 14:15 19:16
21:1 32:2 36:10 | judge 1:18 3:11
91:4,8 92:5 95:18 | | inflate 83:21 | intend 101:22 198:6
intended 16:1 | investments 205:14
investors 76:12
83:23 | issues 14:15 19:16
21:1 32:2 36:10
37:9,9,25 50:23 | 97:18 98:2 99:8,9
103:17 105:22 | | inflection 17:6
inflicted 232:11 | intending 67:9
183:13 | invocation 100:20
101:20 126:16 | issues 14:15 19:16
21:1 32:2 36:10
37:9,9,25 50:23 | 103:17 105:22
109:2 111:9 112:3 | | influence 174:20
191:20,22 208:23 | intent 85:1 101:17
160:18 190:10 | involved 21:15
83:11 98:6 101:14 | issues 14:15 19:16
21:1 32:2 36:10
37:9,9,25 50:23 | 121:4 131:18
133:7,12 136:6,9
141:2,22 145:16
175:9 179:4
236:24 | | information 55:6
67:1 69:4 78:25
86:23,25 94:5
137:8,14 140:18
146:22 159:4,4
169:20 172:16
179:23 180:18,21
185:5 206:7
214:12 215:3
218:7 231:17,25
234:19,24 | intentional 17:6
intentionally 171:12
interest 36:16 133:1
190:21 202:16
interested 168:20
230:3
interfere 134:6
interference 17:7
interior 161:14
international 66:9
69:11 | invoke 101:23
110:16 114:24
involved 21:15
83:11 98:6 101:14
153:8 157:22
168:14 197:23
217:2 223:13
involvement 19:20
19:22 20:7 48:20
138:19 216:24 | issuing 6:5 25:17
items 207:15 217:25 | judges 5:12 9:12
58:18 90:7 135:10
judgment 107:14
107:16,17 112:19
112:22 117:1,5
123:5 124:7
125:16 130:22
226:16 | | inherent 18:14
initial 34:20 42:25
45:9,10 109:25
197:15 | interplay 108:10
interpose 10:21
interrogatories
189:6 190:1
interrupt 81:1
181:13,16 | involving 13:9
66:16 106:17
125:25 126:3
150:22 175:18
176:8
ipso 85:13
irrelevant 64:25
71:1 75:13 76:16
77:2 78:12 151:7
153:24 167:16
174:3 175:10
196:6 199:20
irrespective 33:23
Islands 100:2
isolated 158:7,8,9
issue 3:3 6:22 27:3
33:1,5 38:7,14
48:21 49:5 56:13
56:18,25 57:4
59:2 75:13 77:7
81:19 83:8 84:1 | J 2:5
Jack 2:9,13 92:23
jail 150:2 182:16
192:1
Jane 70:22 83:3
98:5 102:7,14
105:16 128:5
154:8 158:3,4
165:8 186:21
187:11 215:9
Jansen 8:2 193:14
193:19 194:8,14
194:16
Jansen's 193:10,12
193:18
Jeffrey 1:5 2:11,15
32:8,13,14 61:22
65:3 66:6 67:2
81:20 95:5 121:5
136:15 150:4 | judicial 1:1 5:21
7:11,16 9:18,23
16:7 22:11 26:9
28:14 35:8 42:5,8
42:22 64:17 74:1
79:13 88:14 89:13
95:1 108:5 137:9
162:23 188:18
226:17 229:16
juggling 92:7
juncture 53:23
77:15 103:10
112:23 149:10
junctures 134:17
135:3
June 175:9 209:12
jurisdiction 13:3
18:6 20:25 21:12
120:17
jurisdictions 97:6
100:2,25 101:7 | | jury 12:6 44:4,7
51:16 54:18,21
67:10 79:8,18
80:7 81:16 82:8
87:12 110:21
123:5 133:7,12
139:21 140:17,21
140:22 142:3,9,21
142:24 143:12
145:5 146:4 148:9
151:10,11 159:12
166:3 169:9
173:15,19 178:4,9
191:14 201:15
222:9,12 225:1
226:19 233:13 | 141:18,18 143:17
146:5 147:3 148:4
148:10,17 151:18
151:20 154:11
157:3 164:20
165:10 167:3
171:14 172:2
175:4 176:20
178:23 181:7,18
182:1 197:5 200:6
201:21 210:17
211:7,18 212:17
214:13 216:2,20
217:20 220:4
226:18 | large 58:12 167:22
191:4,23
largely 143:24
larger 191:5
Larry 180:24
late 21:9 28:13
Lauderdale 76:9
law 6:2 7:15 9:11
16:16 19:10 20:13
24:20 25:24 26:19
26:25 28:1,16
29:2,14,20 41:6
49:4,25 52:4,7,21
52:25 53:10 54:2
58:24 59:1,21
66:11 72:5,5,23
74:8,17 86:9 87:2
87:12 88:21 90:2
124:16 126:10
136:23 139:21
142:9 144:2,11
156:16 157:19
165:22 166:5
173:20 174:14
189:25 191:2
196:4 217:14
laws 28:4 36:12
52:18
lawsuit 5:15 6:11
7:10 9:20 36:1
41:13 42:11,12
43:12 46:13,17
47:17,19 76:8,19
86:24 90:6,15,24
99:15 107:11
109:5,7 110:3,8
123:1 130:1
137:17 146:1
152:23 170:23
174:10 189:22
191:17 230:20
lawsuits 8:11 73:16
73:17,20 75:23
152:24 182:11,20
189:18 191:24
lawyer 37:14,14
43:5,19 94:15
101:1 110:16
207:17
lawyers 5:11 39:9
88:11 90:7 190:15
lays 5:13,14
lead 65:11 72:7
145:20 220:17
224:12 225:7
leadership 190:17
leading 71:1 190:13
leafing 177:16
learned 45:13 | leave 3:16 56:23
leaves 183:21
led 185:5
left 56:2 62:3,10
143:5,5
legal 15:2 16:15
23:23 24:1 27:18
28:10,25 30:2
35:20 42:15 51:21
118:10 129:22
130:20 131:4
226:21
legally 14:2 28:20
29:10 51:23
legislative 13:10
legitimacy 83:2
169:2,5
legitimate 140:7
length 100:8 118:23
lengthier 226:6
let's 56:14 64:1 86:3
91:16 96:6 97:8
107:24 139:12
145:1 150:5
160:23 174:15
letter 62:5 196:20
199:13 205:16
206:15 207:11
209:18 210:6
213:2 214:6,9
215:21
letters 206:2,12
207:16 208:15
209:7,10 216:3
level 8:5 92:11
103:10 105:14
114:18,23 133:19
134:6 184:14
Lexington 2:16
liability 9:13,19
16:5 37:3 73:24
97:5 109:11 121:8
183:2 191:3,5
Liabos 74:14
liberality 27:5
license 164:20
life 98:22 157:16
192:1
lifetime 173:6
light 25:10 36:25
54:22 178:10
221:8 222:24
223:1
likelihood 121:3
171:6 180:4
196:12 224:22
limine 59:25 61:4
61:23 62:12 63:13
63:18 | limit 51:5 53:23
121:18 236:3
limitation 116:17
121:15 191:7
limitations 10:7
17:5 101:3,9
limited 23:18 36:22
54:17,20 101:10
106:8 113:7
117:22 125:9
limited-purpose
49:7
line 47:17,18 51:6
68:7 105:13
179:15 199:23
lines 10:23
Link 2:3,5 3:10,14
3:15 4:20,24
10:17,24 11:3
12:8 30:12 31:5
33:9,19 37:1 38:5
38:16,19 39:21
40:13 43:1 45:6
45:21 46:10,23
47:5 48:3 61:11
63:8,12 64:2 73:8
83:10 86:4,7,17
87:4,16 88:4,7
89:6,10 92:20
96:2 104:12,13,19
105:3 135:18,25
136:1,5,8,16
137:2 141:21
143:22 144:19
145:8 146:12
159:25 178:19
181:2,13,16 182:3
182:5 186:15,19
187:2,7,15 188:3
188:8 236:24
Link's 31:2 72:22
153:9
linked 33:17 51:13
linking 50:24
links 53:19
list 56:4 57:12 62:11
62:15,16,25 63:23
63:24,25 66:3
73:14 104:14
160:13 161:23
164:25 177:24
180:23 189:7
202:17 204:12
205:3,23 212:16
215:4 226:7
listed 57:23 62:14
63:8 81:20 158:25
159:15 160:12
161:11 181:9 | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | K | | | | | | K 2:16,17 | L | | | | | Kalina 22:21 | L 197:3,15 | | | | | KARA 2:4 | L.M 34:21 70:22 | | | | | keep 43:15 158:1
200:9 236:23 | 83:3 102:14 | | | | | keeping 180:19 | 122:12,20 128:4 | | | | | keeps 150:18
195:20 212:5
149:21 | 145:13 154:8
158:2,4 186:21 | | | | | key 9:14 40:17 | 158:2,4 186:21 | | | | | kind 91:5 92:6
96:21 99:18
109:10 114:9
157:20 | L.R 158:21 197:7
197:17
labels 211:12,13
lack 22:24 26:12
40:24 41:21 67:15
138:24 139:14
219:7 | | | | | knew 49:20 64:22
71:23,24,25 72:12
73:6 115:25
144:25 146:22
155:22 156:8,9,10
156:13,14,17,18
156:19 157:25
158:5 169:24
173:8 178:13 | ladies 104:8 159:18
197:23
lady 197:10 216:22
Lakes 1:23 2:3,8
95:23
language 15:25
123:14 137:20 | | | | | know 23:17 33:21
50:6 56:8,16 58:3
58:19,25 60:25
65:25 70:12 80:12
92:19,24 93:5
101:8,9,24 102:19
104:7,8 107:5,7,8
115:20 121:9
123:14 137:20 | ladies 104:8 159:18
197:23
lady 197:10 216:22
Lakes 1:23 2:3,8
95:23
language 15:25
Lanna 207:19 | | | | | 187:10 204:1 | 43:21,22 44:4,8 | 32:24 34:2 40:20 | math 115:16 129:15 | 128:10 129:6 | | --------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------- | | 210:19 214:18 | 55:9 67:12 68:23 | 42:3 44:9,19 51:7 | mathematical | 130:2 205:12 | | 217:25 | 70:13 100:8 | 51:24 64:20 72:25 | 115:13 | 212:24 219:21 | | listen 136:6 | 114:14 126:24 | 73:7 74:8 75:12 | matter 7:15 16:16 | mentioning 77:17 | | listened 102:2 | 137:6,7 142:13 | 78:1 80:10,18 | 19:10 21:6,14,17 | mentions 20:23 | | listening 104:7 | 143:2 145:2,13 | 82:11 86:19,22 | 22:1,14 28:16 | 68:20 85:12 | | listing 151:24 220:5 | 168:20 179:9 | 87:13 115:7 116:6 | 29:20 32:22 44:21 | mere 14:5 85:11 | | 223:6 | 185:18 193:7 | 122:10 123:9 | 49:3 57:6 74:11 | 192:9 | | lists 63:13 157:4 | 200:16 203:2 | 130:17 131:7 | 78:10 83:11 85:3 | merely 52:7 | | 218:2 | 205:22 208:8 | 140:12 143:21 | 97:12,16 98:1,4 | merits 29:23 121:2 | | literally 184:6 | 209:17,22 234:21 | 151:7 165:14 | 99:2 111:11 113:7 | 182:23 | | litigant 15:12 47:12 | looked 41:2,18 | 180:16 185:22 | 119:16 121:1 | messages 167:9 | | 85:4 128:18 | 101:18 118:1,4 | 191:16 194:12 | 122:12 123:12 | Miami 88:21 | | litigate 26:10 88:22 | 136:12 138:16 | 196:11 207:5 | 128:20 133:2,6,11 | mid-thought 96:3 | | litigated 97:16 | 139:4,8 154:6 | 220:20,24 227:22 | 149:12,13 162:23 | 135:21 | | litigation 4:11 5:3 | 161:15 | maliciously 6:24 | 165:22 166:5 | middle 91:13 | | 6:10 9:5 11:10 | looking 72:25 112:1 | 121:19 228:25 | 172:6,13 179:25 | 157:12 197:15 | | 12:23 14:5 15:6 | 137:2,21 138:3 | 230:19,20 | 181:8 188:18 | Militano 127:5 | | 15:11,15 21:4 | 212:20 222:14 | malpractice 99:14 | 189:6 215:16 | million 145:6,7,8 | | 25:7,12 37:4 | looks 68:8 162:9 | managed 57:13 | 232:16 233:2 | mind 31:5 45:24 | | 42:14 47:11 69:20 | 204:20 | manager 207:24 | matters 23:18 49:10 | 47:20 60:7 93:3 | | 69:21,24 70:5 | lose 106:24 | Mancusi 18:20 | 57:10 65:9 67:14 | 148:25 174:20 | | 71:14 83:19 87:11 | loss 45:1 113:19 | 40:25 41:16 47:6 | 80:24 81:14 85:18 | 181:14,16 182:3 | | 87:25 88:17,25 | lost 227:18 | manifest 214:25 | 97:4 99:15,16,22 | 186:15 232:20 | | 89:20,22 90:1,5,8 | lot 21:23 60:10 | 215:2 | 114:8 133:17 | 234:12 | | 90:12,18,20 | 73:15 93:3 99:6 | manifestations | 134:23 148:11 | mindful 58:17 | | 103:15,16 113:21 | 138:13 220:6 | 127:23 | 168:12 175:6 | mine 62:19 189:3 | | 115:11 117:14 | 235:11 | manifests 70:1 | 203:6 211:2 | mini-trials 189:18 | | 144:24 165:23 | luck 134:23 | [REDACTED] 51:19 58:23 | 213:17 220:14 | minor 179:2,5 | | 188:7 219:21 | lunch 91:14 | 83:4 94:7 100:15 | maximum 228:19 | minority 176:24 | | 221:12,18 226:7 | lying 175:20 | 133:19 154:19,20 | Maxwell 231:10 | minors 101:14 | | little 19:7 30:13 | | manslaughter | MC2 200:4,4,7,13 | 103:5 165:25 | | 60:17 68:4 141:15 | | 17:22 118:14 | mean 19:2 39:1 | 177:14 | | 183:25 221:7 | M-I-L-I-T-A-N-O | Mar-a-Lago 205:1 | 40:8 63:23 81:1 | minute 72:19 | | live 132:15 | 127:5 | March 112:14 | 137:8,9 142:8 | 139:12 | | lived 103:13 | mail 204:18,22 | 113:11 | 181:22 182:11 | minutes 30:16,23 | | lobby 13:9 | maintain 90:15,24 | margin 129:7 | 183:8 184:24 | 46:19,20 61:15,16 | | locate 159:13 | 133:18 | Maria 215:6 | 223:2 | 93:19,21 115:3 | | log 69:10 85:14 | maintenance | marketing 70:8 | meaning 32:23 38:9 | 181:25 186:14 | | 160:6 | 204:23 | Marra 97:18 98:2 | 77:8 89:1 228:1 | mirrors 218:13 | | logs 64:10,18,24 | majority 157:6 | 99:8,9 103:18 | means 16:14 28:10 | misleading 233:13 | | 65:21 66:3,22,23 | making 40:1 41:12 | 111:9 112:3 121:4 | 31:16 32:10 43:4 | misrepresent | | 71:15 72:9 74:25 | 54:5 84:22 100:11 | marshal 194:18 | 112:22 193:1 | 171:13 | | 75:1,11 76:16 | 106:11 118:7 | massage 156:22 | 214:14 | missed 73:2,2 | | 77:4,9,13,20 78:9 | 137:19,25 146:8 | 200:25 201:4,5,19 | mechanism 26:9 | misspoken 184:22 | | 78:11,24,25 81:3 | 178:16 230:13 | massages 201:7 | medical 223:15 | misstated 186:16 | | 85:12 150:2,11 | malice 22:16,25 | massive 156:2 | 228:17,19 | mistake 32:1 162:1 | | 156:7,11 159:20 | 23:1 26:12 43:24 | material 72:10 | member 17:16,20 | mistaken 97:21 | | 164:19 184:18 | 191:12,14 | 147:10 153:1 | 17:21 65:7 | misunderstood 89:9 | | 208:21 231:19 | malicious 4:12 5:5,6 | 158:17 160:14 | Members 212:17 | mitigate 34:6 | | long 9:11 85:22 | 7:6,14 8:18 10:9 | 175:25 178:16 | memorandum | mix 79:25 122:14 | | 93:11,15 94:13 | 11:12,19,23 12:4 | 207:3 227:10,13 | 134:18 135:4 | mixed 41:5 74:16 | | 111:14,18,20 | 12:20 13:5,12 | 236:23 | memories 91:3 | model 216:22 | | 117:19 118:5 | 15:7,13,16,19 | materiality 192:2 | 123:20 | molestation 150:23 | | 177:24 206:3 | 16:21 17:10,14,25 | materially 78:14 | memory 195:9 | 151:4 178:21 | | longer 57:9 101:13 | 18:7,15,23 19:4 | 196:17 | memos 29:1 | 179:7,8,13 185:12 | | 119:4 229:1 | 21:13 22:19,22 | materials 3:8 46:24 | mentioned 70:11 | 185:15 234:4 | | look 4:24 6:12 10:3 | 23:7 25:8,13,25 | 96:15 122:7 126:8 | 77:9,10 92:17 | molestations 219:4 | | 29:23 31:18 42:7 | 26:3,19 30:6 | 168:1,8 236:7 | 97:2 105:20 | 230:1 | | molester 11:16 | names 33:16 69:10 | 182:8,17 187:19 | 226:8 | obviously 16:10 | | -------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | -------------------------- | | molesting 178:2 | 102:16 103:9,14 | 225:4 | NPA 97:7 100:23 | 36:15 57:25 63:6 | | 232:23 233:3 | 103:18 104:6,7,9 | new 2:17 14:16 | 102:11 111:1,10 | 65:18 71:19 83:7 | | moment 68:16 | 104:15 105:10,20 | 19:15 25:23 26:22 | 133:6 182:22 | 126:7 152:25 | | 88:13 130:3 | 147:11,15 149:14 | 43:4 71:16 100:2 | number 33:15 | 165:21 169:21 | | money 44:23 71:16 | 149:23 154:6 | 127:6 202:13 | 58:12 62:11 64:9 | 189:21 206:19 | | 212:9 | 205:3 212:22 | 232:5 235:4 | 98:6 102:7 145:11 | 215:14 220:6 | | month 14:7 226:10 | narrow 4:10 47:12 | newspaper 76:10 | 146:17 149:19 | 227:10 | | months 132:7,10 | 137:3 160:17,18 | 111:24 193:3,23 | 152:12 153:5,16 | occasion 158:11 | | morning 3:1,14 | 224:16 | 194:1,6,19 234:20 | 159:2 160:25 | occasions 35:5 | | 55:17 72:22 73:9 | nation 90:23 | 235:4 | 161:22 162:19 | 134:9 | | 75:9 137:5 236:3 | nature 19:1 21:3 | newspapers 125:18 | 165:2 167:7,8 | occupants 66:4 | | motion 3:3,16 13:17 | 59:25 83:13 89:2 | nexus 36:18 | 168:17 180:23 | occur 130:13 | | 13:22 14:19 20:10 | 108:19,22 134:4 | night 122:6 193:16 | 188:11 189:10 | occurred 130:23 | | 26:20 27:9 28:11 | 189:21 224:14 | nine 62:11 64:9 | 190:14 191:4,6,23 | 157:7,23 213:15 | | 28:12,22 29:6,13 | near 231:2 | 115:17 116:21 | 193:5 194:18 | occurring 72:12 | | 29:24 32:4 55:7 | necessarily 28:20 | 123:24 149:19 | 207:22 210:4,6,22 | offend 130:18,19 | | 61:23 62:8,12,22 | 112:20 199:2 | 219:21 | 215:1 223:12,13 | offender 177:11 | | 63:9,12,18 92:3,7 | 210:14 224:8 | nine-page 212:21 | 223:25 225:18 | 202:9,12,20 232:7 | | 96:19 100:4,22 | necessary 34:16 | nine-year 123:17 | 226:14,15 | offender's 234:13 | | 107:13 112:18 | 130:19 131:4 | 224:24 | numbers 147:12,12 | offense 66:16,17 | | 115:18 116:25 | 164:14 188:6 | Nineteen 163:4 | 147:16 149:15,23 | 129:24 234:13 | | 117:4,18,25 118:8 | 198:10 205:25 | Ninety-eight 217:11 | 159:13 177:2 | offenses 98:16 | | 124:19 125:11,12 | 208:25 229:24 | Ninety-four 216:5 | 205:4 | 125:24 | | 126:12,13 127:20 | necessity 108:14 | Ninety-nine 217:12 | numerous 35:5 | offensive 108:18 | | 132:5 135:7 | 126:22 208:21 | Ninety-seven 217:9 | NY 2:17 | 129:25 133:22 | | 163:18 164:1 | need 3:19 7:17 9:5 | Ninety-six 216:15 | | offer 148:5 158:15 | | 193:14,19 194:14 | 9:21 10:1 19:16 | ninth 23:11 48:6 | | 160:10 198:6 | | 194:16 226:15 | 29:5 36:19 44:17 | 51:25 52:22 54:1 | oath 76:2 175:20 | 225:4 | | 235:25 | 57:3 59:12 60:19 | 115:9 | 190:2,4 | offered 58:7 148:4 | | motions 51:4 53:24 | 62:19 82:24 91:12 | Nodar 22:4 23:2 | object 162:14 | 187:2 207:24 | | 56:2 59:4,25 61:3 | 94:3 98:10 105:12 | Noerr 36:9 48:14 | 194:10 | 225:20 | | 94:9 235:24 | 116:7 117:6,16 | Noerr-Pennington 13:8 | objected 64:16 | offering 166:11 | | motive 190:10 | 158:14 161:19 | non-prosecution 98:9,11,17,19,21 | 81:19 188:24 | 186:19 224:15 | | 191:3,11,13 | 186:17 200:21 | 98:25 99:11,17,23 | objecting 62:7 | office 64:12 75:20 | | 192:12 | 201:10 209:17 | 104:23 106:5,23 | objection 56:12 | 81:25 98:12 135:1 | | mountain 194:6 | 210:23 215:16 | 110:14 111:7 | 105:7,11 149:25 | 162:2 196:21 | | move 28:23 31:6 | 222:1 229:8,10 | 115:24 118:25 | 152:1,10 164:24 | 207:1,19 | | 58:15 81:18 86:3 | 230:25 | 120:4,12,25 121:6 | 180:5 186:10 | officer 20:2 | | 174:15 | needed 147:22 | 182:16,25 | 196:13 199:25 | offices 129:3 | | moved 125:19 | needing 94:16 | noon 91:16 | 204:10 207:14 | official 20:3 21:25 | | moving 37:4 | needs 6:21 54:10 | normally 28:8 | 209:7 219:6 222:3 | offing 67:13 | | Mr-Scarola 59:20 | 56:20 67:12 97:10 | notation 122:2 | 222:15 225:18 | 26:4 | | multiple 14:14 | 128:20 151:18,19 | note 13:1 211:15,17 | objections 62:13,15 | okay 12:8 63:4 65:1 | | 213:14 | 153:15 181:12 | noted 19:14 22:20 | 63:5 230:6 235:7 | 69:1,17 92:4 | | murder 17:20 | 191:15 | noted 19:14 22:20 | objective 137:15,22 | 104:18 105:21 | | murdered 17:16 | negligence 34:15 | Notepad/notes 215:6 | 153:14 155:21 | 109:1 136:7 | | muster 35:21 51:21 | negligent 79:22 | notepads 167:10,15 | 156:3 170:1 | 151:21 154:15 | | N | 37:23 | notes 238:10 | objectively 155:19 | 167:25 192:14 | | N 1:17 95:17 | neither 48:14 86:15 | notice 79:13 162:23 | obligation 25:14 | 193:12 205:5 | | N-O-E-R-R 48:14 | net 163:11 | 188:19 213:18 | obliged 160:13 | 236:1,5 237:3 | | name 50:24 103:23 | never 5:6 15:11 | 226:17 | 202:15,21 | omnibus 61:23 | | 104:15 177:1,18 | 16:23,24 25:1 | notification 196:20 | observation 59:21 | 62:12 63:12,18,20 | | 180:25 181:6 | 35:6,6 46:14 | notoriety 21:16,20 | observe 115:9,17 | onboard 69:7 70:3 | | 197:11,16 | 70:21 73:6 74:7 | November 56:3 | observed 116:2 | once 12:3 42:11 | | named 156:20 | 76:22 107:18,20 | 59:23 63:5 72:23 | obtain 57:24 78:24 | 61:10 65:7 83:10 | | 176:16 | 123:15 160:5,6 | 74:16 175:15 | obvious 36:14 | 91:3 134:14,15 | | | | | 101:15 | 142:24 206:14 | | | | | | 228:25 236:18 | | one's 132:15 | 80:5 88:24 89:16 | paragraphs 74:5 | party 13:22,25 | 170:1 177:4 | | -------------------------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | | ones 28:18 69:18 | 89:24 148:8 | parallels 127:20 | 118:7 123:15 | 179:11 200:4 | | 80:13 221:2 | 167:11,15 173:18 | parameter 100:12 | 221:18 224:15 | 203:20 233:18 | | ongoing 113:20 | 201:15 | parameters 100:21 | 234:3,8,11,16 | personal 92:11 | | 208:18 228:18 | | 101:16 | party's 132:18 | 94:16 127:1,15 | | online 193:3 194:18 | outstanding 112:19 | Pardon 181:15 | pass 35:20 51:20 | 128:14 151:23 | | open 53:18 76:18 | outweighed 78:14 | parent 22:5 | passed 13:15 | 157:17 | | opening 11:24 | 196:18 233:12 | parenthetically | 181:18 | perspective 100:17 | | 57:18 | overall 145:22,23 | 45:4 | passenger 69:25 | 100:18,19 101:18 | | opinion 4:13,15 7:8 | 83:21 | parse 15:24 25:6,22 | 214:25 215:1,4 | 130:20 | | 22:21 38:9 90:22 | overnight 211:13 | 74:4 139:22 | passport 163:4 | pertain 103:4 | | 143:15 | overriding 141:9 | 179:14 | 164:16 | pertaining 199:21 | | opinions 141:1 | overruled 168:16 | parsing 25:24 | patience 236:25 | pertains 34:24 | | 146:8 186:3 | 186:11 227:2,14 | part 11:17 18:14 | patient 173:22 | pertinent 35:15 | | opponent 234:8,11 | 58:24 59:2 | 31:9 37:18 63:21 | pattern 66:20 | 170:9 | | 234:17 | | 66:7 67:14 71:6 | 158:12 160:11 | petition 10:22 12:16 | | opportunity 30:1 | owened 164:25 | 72:24 77:20 83:17 | Paul 191:2 | 36:7 | | 46:22 60:3,4 | 205:23 | 89:18 97:7 98:20 | pause 68:13 | petitioning 12:24 | | 61:13 65:19 | ownership 202:16 | 99:17 105:4 106:4 | pay 207:24 | 35:23 48:11,23 | | 121:17,18 144:14 | | 118:20 128:3 | paying 156:18 | Phillip 12:12 | | 222:17 236:18 | | 132:1 140:22 | payment 207:23 | phone 81:21,24 | | opposed 49:24 | | 147:25 150:8 | peculiarities 127:2 | 82:3,10 136:15 | | opposing 13:24 55:2 | P 2:9 | 155:21 158:11 | 127:16 | 146:14,18,25 | | 57:12 155:16 | P.A 2:3,7,12 | 163:18 168:15,16 | peculiarity 127:22 | 147:9 149:7,11,21 | | 57:12 155:16 | p.m 1:16 94:21,21 | 180:18 183:17 | 128:19 | 156:6,9 159:13,14 | | opposite 36:6 37:13 | 95:16 237:6 | 186:9,10,10,11 | peg 35:12 | 160:5 162:9 185:6 | | 53:9,14 | PACER 112:16 | 190:11 194:3 | pejorative 83:6 | 231:6 | | oral 30:11 126:6,21 | 22:18,24 223:6,7 | 201:14 202:11 | pendency 115:10,24 | phonetic 131:17 | | oranges 80:1 | package 55:4 | 207:12 208:10,18 | 117:22 128:4 | photograph 203:9 | | order 25:17 31:17 | packages 209:24 | 210:18 | 188:7 | 231:10 | | 54:7 96:10 111:9 | packet 210:23 | partial 112:18 | pending 56:1 96:20 | photographs 203:5 | | 112:4 117:7 127:6 | packets 55:2 | 125:16 | 98:2 110:4 191:4 | phrase 126:13 | | 127:13 132:1 | | participant 65:5 | 191:23 218:15 | phrased 51:20 | | 135:1,14 147:23 | 7:8 8:2,7,8 61:22 | 67:5 156:2 | Pennington 36:10 | 222:4,15 225:18 | | 162:4 169:24 | 63:9,17 68:7,9 | participate 155:11 | 48:14 | pick 56:1 | | 179:24 192:16 | 68:19 138:14 | participated 173:13 | people 14:23 18:24 | picking 212:9 | | 221:19,22 225:15 | 153:24 168:19 | participating | 71:10 130:11 | picture 42:10 | | 228:2 235:25 | 169:10 217:7 | 157:14 | 198:1 201:1 | pictures 166:2 | | 236:14 | 222:11 223:23 | particular 40:3 | 212:22 217:1 | pilot 70:19 71:14 | | ordered 214:20 | paid 87:10 145:6 | 56:13 64:15 | perceive 79:9 | pilots 66:25 70:18 | | 216:9,13 | 156:20,22 180:9 | 127:22 128:19 | perceived 129:8 | 70:19 181:1 | | ordering 216:12 | Palm 1:2,17,22,23 | 154:6 155:5 | percent 103:12 | 208:20 | | orders 99:9 146:8 | 1:23 2:3,4,8,8,13 | 158:19,22 159:17 | perceptions 127:1 | pilots' 71:2 | | 201:22 236:10 | 95:2,17,22,23,23 | 179:22 190:18 | 127:15 | Pinto 199:9 | | original 5:21,22 | 168:17 171:20 | 203:1 212:13 | period 111:3 112:10 | place 1:17,19 24:5 | | 6:14 7:16 16:7,13 | 173:25 197:24 | 221:1 234:18 | 129:1,11 182:14 | 49:6 54:18,20 | | 42:8,16,17,18,21 | 204:8 205:16 | particularly 36:8 | 216:14 224:24,24 | 56:1 69:8 70:4,9 | | 43:24 44:2 63:20 | 206:16 209:25 | 53:11 80:5 101:14 | periodicals 194:7 | 71:12,23 80:2 | | 73:5 74:3,13 | 211:14 217:17,19 | 171:9 178:10 | periods 131:23 | 95:17,19 98:12 | | 75:15 82:14,21 | 218:1,19 231:21 | 202:13 205:9,10 | 132:4 | 107:3 174:11 | | 87:14 146:23 | 238:5 | 220:16 | permission 104:20 | 183:4,19 | | 173:11 193:24 | paper 223:12 | parties 4:22 9:12 | permits 79:16 | places 63:16 100:3 | | 226:24 | papers 83:10 113:2 | 54:4 71:7 73:23 | permitted 83:4 | plain 38:8 | | originate 194:4 | 126:19 | 88:12 90:6 93:4 | 84:23 182:22 | plaintiff 3:15 16:8 | | ought 187:5 221:21 | parade 157:4 | 106:15 108:7 | 219:16 | 26:1 27:15,16 | | 223:10 | parading 151:10 | 147:23 148:1 | person 36:3 87:1 | 36:4 42:23 44:1 | | outcome 101:19 | paragraph 15:10 | 164:8 208:22 | 94:15 137:15,16 | 44:22,23 48:17 | | 121:3 | 68:13,24 69:3,19 | partner 75:22 | 137:19,24,24 | 50:15 87:14 110:6 | | outlined 134:17 | 115:23 | parts 98:18 | 142:11 155:20 | 110:12 124:15 | | outside 37:19 79:7 | | | | | | 129:10 184:6
219:24 | 178:1 187:23
plight 77:11 | possible 101:19
162:1 | prepared 48:3
55:24 56:6,15
57:15 58:1 92:2
92:18 94:5 169:8
195:19,23 | privilege 4:11 5:4
6:11 9:5 11:11,18
12:24 13:23 14:11
14:25 15:7,12,15
16:2,20 22:16,23
25:7,13 37:5
42:14 47:11 87:25
88:9 90:5,12,18
90:20 119:5,9
120:21 126:24
147:21 | | | ---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | plaintiff's 138:8
151:24 | plural 216:19
plus 5:7 19:16
point 9:8,8 33:21
40:15 58:14 59:17
61:2 87:18 102:17
103:11 112:17,25
113:7 114:6
119:12 122:16
127:25 132:7
152:20 154:17
158:24 161:10
166:11 167:5
176:3 184:9
194:17 198:9,16
200:17 208:4
236:12 | potentialities 101:8
potentiality 100:24
potentially 34:5
78:3 80:22 97:4
132:3 153:6
160:21 220:5
221:16 | preparedness 168:3
preparing 22:7
presence 79:7 148:9
present 16:8 42:15
42:22 55:1,19
72:2 93:21 131:3
224:16
presentation 13:2
30:12 47:4 72:22
177:12
presentations 126:6
presented 28:12
55:2 133:23
presentence 177:7
preserve 108:15
Presiding 1:18
95:18
press 37:9,10 39:7,8
39:10,25 40:4
77:9 108:7
presumably 33:17
50:25 116:5
presume 11:1 56:17
56:22 119:13
161:4,5 163:5,17
165:1,7,9 189:13
205:19
presumed 22:17
49:18
presumption 23:1
pretenses 86:16
pretrial 60:8
pretty 236:2
prevalent 36:18
prevents 98:12
previously 19:15
65:10
primarily 50:2 69:2
88:19 130:5
prime 71:15
Prince 231:11
principle 73:12
206:17
print 45:20 50:24
prior 81:6 97:1
132:7 157:11
171:10 175:15
207:17 213:15
216:23 218:20
228:5
priority 211:13
privacy 149:13
private 19:19 20:1
21:21 69:7 | pro 190:25
probable 6:12,14
9:23 16:13 22:24
26:12 31:13,17,21
40:24 41:6,21
43:6,11 45:9,11
46:2,4,7,9,12,14
67:15 74:23 90:16
90:25 91:1 138:24
139:14,18 140:1
143:1 145:17,20
146:4 151:5,11
152:15 153:13
155:14,24 170:2
172:25 173:7,11
173:16 185:1
191:8 194:4
195:19,22 209:23
probably 92:19
168:8 169:15,18
195:4 223:22
230:25,25
probation 150:4,7
150:10 151:17
152:8 159:19
201:25
probative 77:3
78:13 114:9 151:9
159:10 178:3
196:17 233:11
problem 57:18
61:14 149:1
220:13
procedural 61:18
127:23
procedurally 99:18
106:21 114:22
procedure 172:8
175:16
procedures 24:4,24
proceed 39:20 48:5
54:11 60:14 96:17
96:24 160:24
proceeding 5:8,22
5:22,23 6:14 7:12
7:17 9:18,23 | | | Plaintiff/Counter
2:2 | point 9:8,8 33:21
40:15 58:14 59:17
61:2 87:18 102:17
103:11 112:17,25
113:7 114:6
119:12 122:16
127:25 132:7
152:20 154:17
158:24 161:10
166:11 167:5
176:3 184:9
194:17 198:9,16
200:17 208:4
236:12 | pointed 14:8 40:25
41:4 50:19 59:19
79:5 117:13
120:11 131:13
143:8 144:13
161:20 184:11
219:22 | possible 101:19
162:1
possibly 14:16 69:9
84:22 87:8
Post 232:6
potential 28:3 78:5
100:1 101:11,12
108:10 122:9,25
123:2 130:4,7,15
131:6 174:9 191:6
210:13
potentialities 101:8
potentiality 100:24
potentially 34:5
78:3 80:22 97:4
132:3 153:6
160:21 220:5
221:16
practice 110:6
172:1,2
practiced 173:3
practitioner 112:21
182:13 183:14
praise 134:13
pre-existing 152:5
precedent 27:19
preceding 15:10
precise 175:4
precisely 37:13-56:2
preclude 193:15
precluded 77:1
precludes 16:17
predator 232:7
predicate 23:24
58:8
prediction 121:14
preference 102:22
prejudice 13:24
15:1 78:15 81:4
113:6 114:3,8,14
114:15 123:13
124:10 151:13
196:18 219:8
233:13
prejudicial 77:4
82:7 133:1 153:25
162:17 167:16
175:11 196:7
231:13 233:21
prejudicing 82:8
preliminarily
199:24 200:22
preliminary 58:6
premium 156:25
157:1
preparation 196:1
198:23
prepare 92:10
135:1 236:10,13 | prepared 48:3
55:24 56:6,15
57:15 58:1 92:2
92:18 94:5 169:8
195:19,23
195:19,23
preparedness 168:3
preparing 22:7
presence 79:7 148:9
present 16:8 42:15
42:22 55:1,19
72:2 93:21 131:3
224:16
presentation 13:2
30:12 47:4 72:22
177:12
presentations 126:6
presented 28:12
55:2 133:23
presentence 177:7
preserve 108:15
Presiding 1:18
95:18
press 37:9,10 39:7,8
39:10,25 40:4
77:9 108:7
presumably 33:17
50:25 116:5
presume 11:1 56:17
56:22 119:13
161:4,5 163:5,17
165:1,7,9 189:13
205:19
presumed 22:17
49:18
presumption 23:1
pretenses 86:16
pretrial 60:8
pretty 236:2
prevalent 36:18
prevents 98:12
previously 19:15
65:10
primarily 50:2 69:2
88:19 130:5
prime 71:15
Prince 231:11
principle 73:12
206:17
print 45:20 50:24
prior 81:6 97:1
132:7 157:11
171:10 175:15
207:17 213:15
216:23 218:20
228:5
priority 211:13
privacy 149:13
private 19:19 20:1
21:21 69:7 | privilege 4:11 5:4
6:11 9:5 11:11,18
12:24 13:23 14:11
14:25 15:7,12,15
16:2,20 22:16,23
25:7,13 37:5
42:14 47:11 87:25
88:9 90:5,12,18
90:20 119:5,9
120:21 126:24
147:21
privileges 109:9
110:17 114:25
pro 190:25
probable 6:12,14
9:23 16:13 22:24
26:12 31:13,17,21
40:24 41:6,21
43:6,11 45:9,11
46:2,4,7,9,12,14
67:15 74:23 90:16
90:25 91:1 138:24
139:14,18 140:1
143:1 145:17,20
146:4 151:5,11
152:15 153:13
155:14,24 170:2
172:25 173:7,11
173:16 185:1
191:8 194:4
195:19,22 209:23
probably 92:19
168:8 169:15,18
195:4 223:22
230:25,25
probation 150:4,7
150:10 151:17
152:8 159:19
201:25
probative 77:3
78:13 114:9 151:9
159:10 178:3
196:17 233:11
problem 57:18
61:14 149:1
220:13
procedural 61:18
127:23
procedurally 99:18
106:21 114:22
procedure 172:8
175:16
procedures 24:4,24
proceed 39:20 48:5
54:11 60:14 96:17
96:24 160:24
proceeding 5:8,22
5:22,23 6:14 7:12
7:17 9:18,23 | | 11:17 16:8,13 | 88:22 154:21 | protected 5:12 6:10 | pulled 167:15 | 79:10 120:14 | | -------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | ---------------------- | | 19:22,23 42:5,8 | properties 162:25 | 7:2 9:4 11:16 | pulls 74:2 167:11 | 138:6 147:22 | | 42:16,17,19,22 | 180:23 195:16 | 12:23 25:2 42:13 | pump 71:16 | 163:25 186:3 | | 43:8,25 44:2 45:5 | property 212:1,2 | 47:21,24 88:8 | pumping 71:4 | 234:1 235:2,22 | | 46:3,5,6 73:5 74:3 | 218:1 | 90:12,17 | punitive 24:7,15 | 236:13 | | 74:13 75:15,18 | propose 55:10 | protecting 18:25 | 25:3 33:13 41:8 | quickly 55:9 60:22 | | 82:15 117:21,23 | proposed 28:5 51:1 | 24:21 36:16 | 47:9 49:18 52:6 | 154:5 | | 120:6 131:16 | 57:12 | protection 10:25 | 52:17 163:6 165:2 | quite 31:15 35:4 | | 138:1 139:1 | proposition 18:18 | protections 24:19 | 194:24 195:5 | 79:21 82:9 108:24 | | 142:12 146:23 | 19:6 23:23 24:2 | 214:10 | 200:2 202:23,25 | 115:14 117:10 | | 173:12 193:25 | proprietary 155:6 | protective 235:25 | 205:14,25 232:21 | 165:11 | | 194:5 226:24 | prosecute 17:19 | protects 15:12 | 234:14 | quote 44:20 48:23 | | 229:19 | prosecuted 6:24 | protocol 127:23 | purchased 196:9 | 48:24 50:10 69:3 | | proceedings 1:14,20 | 192:10 219:3 | prove 16:14 22:24 | pure 178:24 | 70:9 71:7,18 | | 11:15 21:22,23 | 230:20 | 22:25 26:13 31:11 | purportedly 69:10 | 117:18 126:22 | | 24:9 74:1 87:2 | prosecuting 190:15 | 31:17,22,24 34:1 | purpose 11:22 59:5 | 127:3,4,11,14 | | 95:14,20 96:19 | 190:24 208:11 | 66:2,19 73:4 74:6 | 72:10 149:8 | quoted 76:10 | | 116:21 124:14 | prosecution 4:12 | 82:13,20 84:10,12 | purposefully 81:15 | quotes 71:4 232:9 | | 131:19 237:5 | 5:5,6 7:6,14 8:18 | 84:14,24 136:19 | purposes 20:17 | quoting 127:7 | | 238:9 | 10:9 11:13,19,23 | 139:19,24 142:3 | 25:25 53:21 57:5 | | | process 11:10 24:6 | 12:4,21 13:5,13 | 146:3 147:6 | 58:13 66:1,10,21 | R | | 52:16,18 58:4 | 16:21 17:11,14,25 | 150:15 153:12 | 71:3 97:20 131:1 | R 197:15 216:25 | | 67:17 77:20 87:7 | 18:7,15,23 19:4 | 175:24 232:15,18 | 148:14 232:20 | 217:8 | | 89:15 99:5 209:19 | 21:13 22:19,22 | 232:19 233:2,17 | pursuant 72:4 | R-E-C-A-R-E-Y | | procuring 177:4 | 23:7 25:9,14,25 | proven 130:21 | 182:21 189:24 | 218:21 | | 179:11 | 26:3,19 30:7 | proverbial 107:2 | 228:2 | radar 37:24 | | produce 117:7 | 32:25 34:2 40:21 | provide 23:24 52:4 | pursue 79:23 | raiding 129:2 | | 214:20 223:7 | 42:4 44:9,19 51:7 | 104:24 206:6 | pursued 69:25 | raise 10:6 14:14,15 | | 225:22 | 51:24 64:21 73:1 | provided 55:5 64:12 | pursuing 152:25 | 18:8 19:15 24:11 | | produced 81:25 | 73:7 74:8 75:12 | 126:9,10 198:20 | pushed 93:6 | 26:24 78:16 87:18 | | 153:22 161:4 | 78:1 80:10,18 | 199:14 204:7 | put 3:17 8:13,25 9:2 | 233:10 | | 162:2,3 163:3,5 | 82:11 86:20,22 | 219:9 220:1 221:7 | 24:5 30:3 39:2,4,8 | raised 14:3 230:6 | | 165:7 175:4 193:6 | 87:14 98:14 99:2 | provides 12:16 | 39:24 94:4 97:8 | 233:10,11 | | 193:9 211:12 | 100:24 115:7 | proving 23:19 31:12 | 107:2 110:1 124:6 | ramifications 123:1 | | 214:14,15,19 | 116:6 118:11 | 118:5 | 138:22 139:11 | 123:2 174:9,9 | | 216:6,8,10,13 | 122:10 123:9 | provision 230:8 | 145:10,10 181:24 | rare 130:12 | | 217:22,23 218:19 | 130:17 131:7 | provisions 146:11 | 187:19 | rarely 148:19 | | 226:3,11 227:16 | 140:13 143:21 | proviso 161:18 | puts 37:7 94:7 | rash 154:19 | | 228:1,5,8 229:3 | 144:3 145:18 | PSI 177:7 | putting 16:22 40:2 | rate 166:9 | | 231:7 | 151:7 165:14 | psychiatric 223:16 | puzzled 82:19,24 | Razorback 76:8 | | production 189:5 | 169:17 172:5,19 | 223:18 | | re-evaluated 131:18 | | 214:7 228:7 230:7 | 179:17 180:16 | psychological 197:7 | Q | re-examine 161:18 | | 230:22 | 185:22 190:13,23 | 197:20 | qualified 22:15,22 | re-produce 229:10 | | professional 20:6,15 | 194:12 196:11 | public 19:14,23 | quality 206:21 | re-produced 229:8 | | 20:16 | 213:9 220:18,20 | 20:3,8,11 21:7,15 | quasi- 37:6 | reaction 185:19 | | professor 191:2 | 220:24 227:22 | 21:18,25,25 22:1 | quasi-public 38:21 | read 5:24 33:20 | | project 199:12 | 220:24 227:22 | 22:10,14,15 36:22 | 39:23 | 45:15 46:24 51:1 | | prolong 133:14 | 121:11 191:6 | 37:7 38:3 39:4 | question 18:3 30:4 | 56:7,9 69:17 | | promote 39:12 | 121:11 191:6 | 40:9 49:7 124:1 | 40:19 41:5,25 | 76:11 87:22 113:2 | | prong 100:6 | prosecutor 17:19 | public's 100:18 | 60:20 70:21 74:17 | 126:17 137:4,5 | | pronouncements 102:3 | prosecutorial 191:20 | publication 17:1,3 | 74:19 78:16 81:5 | 145:23 154:15 | | proof 15:18 21:2,8 | 191:20 | 26:8 44:10 89:1 | 84:3 87:17 105:23 | 199:13 | | 21:11 123:16,19 | prostitute 145:14 | publications 193:4 | 109:19 116:19 | reading 6:20 28:1 | | 123:22 142:1 | prostituting 176:18 | 194:20 | 137:10 168:6 | 51:10 68:15 138:2 | | 143:20 145:3 | prostitution 66:1,10 | publicity 21:24 34:8 | 169:3 183:6 198:3 | 206:15 | | propensity 150:16 | 66:21 176:19,22 | published 9:17,20 | 206:22 235:20 | ready 3:10,12 54:11 | | propensity 150:16 | 177:3,5 179:12 | 73:25 108:8 | questions 34:17 | 54:12 96:16,17 | | properly 22:7,8 | protect 7:21 11:5 | Pucillo 175:9 | 54:17,20 55:8,10 | reaffirmed 5:7 | | | 24:5 90:5 197:11 | Pucillo's 179:4 | 55:12 71:1 79:10 | real 37:25 87:15 | | 159:9 | recognize 59:24 | reflects 176:11 | 153:7 158:25 | 147:22 170:1 | | -------------------- | -------------------- | --------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------- | | realized 122:25 | 131:6 234:16 | 196:7 | 163:6 175:6 179:5 | 213:20 | | really 5:2,19 7:13 | recognized 9:11 | refreshing 212:23 | 184:19 195:24 | relying 75:1 | | 36:19,23 37:18 | 15:14 41:10 | refuse 120:14 | 198:21 213:23 | remain 59:1 | | 43:22 60:19 72:21 | 117:19 122:9 | refuses 178:13 | 214:2 220:20 | remains 15:20 | | 87:18 148:3 174:2 | recollection 112:6 | regard 53:25 57:11 | relating 70:22 77:11 | 230:9 | | 175:5 179:23 | 177:15 | 60:22 61:9 65:21 | 196:1,3 213:17 | remedies 52:3 111:8 | | 183:23 184:3,15 | recommended 60:15 | 67:13 72:11 79:17 | relation 60:13 151:2 | 128:17 | | 198:18 236:13 | recommended 60:15 | 118:21,22,24 | relationship 20:16 | remedy 98:7 111:6 | | reargue 32:11 | recompense 113:16 | 120:9 141:12 | 48:9 83:1 134:1 | 222:18 | | reasked 131:18 | reconstitute 49:23 | 147:2,4 148:11 | relationships 17:8 | remember 175:21 | | reason 3:21 10:5 | reconvene 235:16 | 159:25 164:3,7 | relatively 112:10 | 176:20 178:8 | | 29:11 31:24 49:13 | record 11:6 39:16 | 166:10 190:9 | releases 37:9 39:10 | 235:19 236:2 | | 52:23 56:19 65:15 | 91:10,11 97:8,20 | 191:21,23 198:14 | relentlessly 69:24 | Remind 69:13 | | 65:22 99:22 | 98:10 104:4 105:4 | 206:18,20 207:4 | relevance 64:17,19 | remiss 99:13 | | 130:10 154:9 | 105:8 111:13,21 | 209:20 211:1 | 71:17 82:4,9 | remote 77:3 82:4 | | 161:11 180:18 | 119:7 131:25 | 213:13,20 221:14 | 165:13 166:10 | 151:8 | | 198:20 223:11 | 134:20 135:8,22 | 225:21 228:10 | 189:15,22 192:2 | remotely 209:3 | | reasonable 65:11 | 135:23,24 154:3,4 | 230:12 231:9 | 196:19 197:20 | removed 132:10 | | 72:3 87:1 116:14 | 172:9,10 175:1 | 234:5,7 | 198:7 199:13 | Rent 211:17 | | 121:15 125:17,20 | 176:10,11 179:6 | regarding 35:23 | 208:3 211:17 | rental 211:5,9,9,10 | | 129:8 137:15,16 | 186:17 202:8 | 53:19 70:1 81:5 | 212:13 231:12 | repeat 168:23 | | 137:23 141:3 | 205:12 209:13,14 | 153:10,11 169:4 | 233:10 | repeated 31:14 | | 145:25 148:7 | 214:24 238:10 | 195:21 201:23 | relevancy 77:12,15 | repeatedly 31:10 | | 149:3 155:20 | records 81:21,24 | 203:7 212:8 218:7 | 149:12 175:23 | 84:21 120:11 | | 173:12 183:11 | 82:3,10 136:15 | 231:25 234:3 | 181:3 192:17 | 123:25 | | reasonableness | 146:15,18,25 | registration 177:10 | 203:10 206:5 | repetition 47:1 | | 155:6 | 147:9,24 149:7,12 | 202:12,20 | 224:2 | report 51:2 193:10 | | reasonably 72:6 | 149:22 156:6,9 | registrations 164:12 | relevant 8:18 22:2 | 193:13 194:9,23 | | 74:12 117:14 | 159:8 160:6 162:8 | 202:1,10 | 72:9 78:7 80:18 | 197:4,20,25 212:8 | | 118:2,6,22 120:20 | 162:10,25 163:1 | rehab 224:8 | 82:2 85:14 89:1 | 216:16 218:2 | | 160:14 169:25 | 184:18 185:6 | rehabilitation 223:18 | 116:15 141:10 | 238:8 | | 196:15 225:13 | 216:19 217:17,19 | reintroduce 136:4 | 147:10 150:24 | reported 1:20 71:8 | | reasons 14:18 59:17 | 218:13 223:15,16 | Reiter 205:16 | 151:8 152:3,7 | 95:20 156:15 | | 101:15 124:18,19 | 227:15 228:8,17 | 209:18 215:21 | 153:1 154:10 | reporter 89:17 | | 134:19 135:8 | 228:23 229:3 | reiterate 124:25 | 158:17 159:5 | 105:6 235:12 | | 160:19,20 176:23 | recover 49:18 | reiterated 128:11 | 160:1,14 162:17 | reporting 1:22 | | 191:9,10 202:7 | red 75:2 | reiterating 131:25 | 164:21 170:15 | 95:22 97:15,22 | | 204:10 209:6 | redress 48:12,24 | reiterating 131:25 | 174:12 176:5 | represent 38:20 | | 210:5 214:23 | redressable 36:7 | reject 140:25 | 178:16 189:16 | 39:5 187:21 | | 218:16 | reduce 191:3 | rejected 17:13 | 194:11 195:24 | representation 34:8 | | rebut 47:2 115:4 | █ 26:18 | rejecting 141:11 | 201:6 205:7 207:3 | 34:9 80:6 | | rebuts 67:1 | Reed's 197:4 | relate 154:2,7 | 209:1,4 219:24 | represented 38:25 | | rebuttal 13:19 | refer 8:8 | 173:23 199:21 | 220:6,19,22 | 53:18 54:25 128:5 | | 93:22 122:23 | reference 57:16,19 | 207:21 | 221:16 223:24 | 154:9 159:18 | | recall 69:21 195:10 | 70:14 99:25 | related 18:2 21:23 | 224:9 227:10,12 | 180:4 198:22 | | Recarey 218:21 | 148:15 215:20 | 34:21 70:23 75:10 | 234:14 | representing 12:12 | | receive 151:14 | referenced 53:12 | 80:23 98:15 | reliance 18:10 | 19:19 20:1 21:22 | | received 55:23 94:6 | 57:14 66:13 150:9 | 138:13 151:5 | relied 26:16 41:11 | 38:11 39:13,22 | | 167:19 217:16 | 157:11 169:15 | 153:17 162:5 | 74:12,20,25 75:14 | 40:6 77:21 | | 218:7 227:24 | references 69:20 | 163:1 175:3 | 76:11 142:11,16 | represents 37:15 | | receiving 123:25 | referred 79:14 | 179:16 193:4 | 142:18,22,25 | reproduce 229:11 | | recess 61:17 94:21 | 97:13 104:4 | 194:20 205:13 | 146:22 152:24 | reproduction | | recitation 52:7 54:2 | referring 150:18 | 210:15 211:4 | 193:24 194:1 | 229:13 | | recited 103:1 | refers 115:23 | 212:1 217:17 | relies 50:2 | reputation 6:8 | | reckless 49:22 | reflect 165:17 172:9 | 218:4 | reluctant 136:3 | 18:13,25 39:3 | | recognition 61:4 | reflected 230:17 | relates 35:1 48:21 | reluctantly 59:8 | request 56:21 57:1 | | 123:7 128:16 | reflection 171:25 | 51:12 52:6 73:15 | rely 22:3 23:23 49:8 | 105:24 106:8,8 | | 130:3,15 | reflective 206:20 | 144:7 152:18 | 107:23 142:17,20 | 228:7 233:23 | | requested 131:23
132:2 164:4 | responsible 92:6
rest 148:21 181:24
192:1 198:24 | 222:8
risk 191:16
road 45:13 | 33:16 75:20 89:23
128:25 173:14
183:5 194:2 | 73:4 91:6 136:9
143:18 183:3
184:5 185:2,7,8,9
187:25 198:17
220:12 224:11 | | | --------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | | requests 163:21,23
189:4,5,24 | restrictions 50:18
rests 115:21 | roadmap 4:16 5:1
8:21 15:4,5,25 | rough 182:10
round 35:12 | says 6:13 7:13 13:4
16:6 18:6,22
20:25 21:13 23:21
41:16 43:3 44:14
69:2,3 74:8 87:2
88:5 89:17,22,24
116:22 125:10
126:22 143:10,11 | | | require 14:16
111:15 172:4 | result 18:13 21:1
33:17 34:19 38:23 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach 2:3,4
30:19,21 55:13,16
62:2,4,9,23 63:4
63:19 64:8 69:14
72:18,21 81:22
83:10 88:3,6
92:20 146:16,20
149:16,20 150:6
152:11,15 153:20
154:5 160:25
161:22 162:13,20
163:3,9,19 165:6
166:17,20,22,25
167:6,20 168:17
170:24 171:12,17
171:25 172:7,23
174:22 175:2
188:12,15,23
189:8,12 193:5,12
196:6 197:6,12,19
198:11 199:11
200:6,10 202:4
204:6,14,17
205:20 206:10
207:15 209:1,11
209:21 210:22
211:3,7 212:19
214:5,13 216:5,25
217:3,5,20 221:10
226:12,18 227:25
229:15 231:12
233:8,9 235:10 | RRA 70:24 71:17
213:11,16
RRA's 71:12
rule 17:1 48:3 66:12
79:15,15 86:7
202:5 218:24
220:14 233:6
234:10
ruled 86:1 106:1
167:7 209:6 218:5
rules 52:11 208:2
ruling 54:8 57:24
61:2 78:12,20
81:17 84:1,9 86:8
106:13 122:22
149:2,19 150:1,3
151:1,22 152:10
154:16 161:6,7,21
164:23 166:21,22
168:21 171:3
179:22 183:24
192:20,24 195:21
197:21 198:14,17
199:8,19 200:24
203:6 205:5
210:11,25 211:22
211:25 212:4,7,11
212:14 213:1
215:2,5,8 216:16
217:10,11,12,15
217:24 218:2,9,22
222:20,25 223:2,3
231:8,20,23
rulings 236:15
run 116:18 | says 6:13 7:13 13:4
16:6 18:6,22
20:25 21:13 23:21
41:16 43:3 44:14
69:2,3 74:8 87:2
88:5 89:17,22,24
116:22 125:10
126:22 143:10,11
145:5 150:20
165:8 184:9
211:15 216:18
Scalia 22:20
scam 70:8 173:14
Scarola 2:7,9 3:6
4:1 6:17 11:12,21
30:13,17,18,22
31:1,8 32:14,16
32:19 33:3,8
39:15,19 40:15
44:6 45:7 46:1,11
47:15 54:11 55:17
57:2 61:18,21
62:3,6,18,24
63:22 64:5,13
65:1,2 67:24 68:2
68:4,25 69:19
70:12 71:19 72:17
73:3,22 74:2 75:4
76:22 78:16,19
79:12,25 80:25
81:25 82:10,18
84:2,7,18 85:8,23
87:19 90:3,13
93:18 96:4 97:1
97:19,25 99:25
102:18,20 103:20
104:16 110:19
113:18 114:25
115:5,6,14 118:15
118:18 119:17,25
122:4 123:11
124:21 125:10
128:11 131:13
134:25 135:6,13
142:2,19 145:7
146:24 147:1
148:22 149:24
150:9,18 151:16
151:19 152:20
153:23 155:1,2
160:8 161:10
162:11 163:8,14
163:20 164:11,22
165:3,17 169:12 | | | requested 131:23
132:2 164:4 | responsible 92:6
rest 148:21 181:24
192:1 198:24 | 222:8
risk 191:16
road 45:13 | 33:16 75:20 89:23
128:25 173:14
183:5 194:2 | | | | requests 163:21,23
189:4,5,24 | restrictions 50:18
rests 115:21 | roadmap 4:16 5:1
8:21 15:4,5,25 | rough 182:10
round 35:12 | | | | require 14:16
111:15 172:4 | result 18:13 21:1
33:17 34:19 38:23 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach 2:3,4
30:19,21 55:13,16
62:2,4,9,23 63:4
63:19 64:8 69:14
72:18,21 81:22
83:10 88:3,6
92:20 146:16,20
149:16,20 150:6
152:11,15 153:20
154:5 160:25
161:22 162:13,20
163:3,9,19 165:6
166:17,20,22,25
167:6,20 168:17
170:24 171:12,17
171:25 172:7,23
174:22 175:2
188:12,15,23
189:8,12 193:5,12
196:6 197:6,12,19
198:11 199:11
200:6,10 202:4
204:6,14,17
205:20 206:10
207:15 209:1,11
209:21 210:22
211:3,7 212:19
214:5,13 216:5,25
217:3,5,20 221:10
226:12,18 227:25
229:15 231:12
233:8,9 235:10 | RRA 70:24 71:17
213:11,16
RRA's 71:12
rule 17:1 48:3 66:12
79:15,15 86:7
202:5 218:24
220:14 233:6
234:10
ruled 86:1 106:1
167:7 209:6 218:5
rules 52:11 208:2
ruling 54:8 57:24
61:2 78:12,20
81:17 84:1,9 86:8
106:13 122:22
149:2,19 150:1,3
151:1,22 152:10
154:16 161:6,7,21
164:23 166:21,22
168:21 171:3
179:22 183:24
192:20,24 195:21
197:21 198:14,17
199:8,19 200:24
203:6 205:5
210:11,25 211:22
211:25 212:4,7,11
212:14 213:1
215:2,5,8 216:16
217:10,11,12,15
217:24 218:2,9,22
222:20,25 223:2,3
231:8,20,23
rulings 236:15
run 116:18 | | | | requested 131:23
132:2 164:4 | responsible 92:6
rest 148:21 181:24
192:1 198:24 | 222:8
risk 191:16
road 45:13 | | | | | requests 163:21,23
189:4,5,24 | restrictions 50:18
rests 115:21 | roadmap 4:16 5:1
8:21 15:4,5,25 | rough 182:10
round 35:12 | | | | require 14:16
111:15 172:4 | result 18:13 21:1
33:17 34:19 38:23 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach 2:3,4
30:19,21 55:13,16
62:2,4,9,23 63:4
63:19 64:8 69:14
72:18,21 81:22
83:10 88:3,6
92:20 146:16,20
149:16,20 150:6
152:11,15 153:20
154:5 160:25
161:22 162:13,20
163:3,9,19 165:6
166:17,20,22,25
167:6,20 168:17
170:24 171:12,17
171:25 172:7,23
174:22 175:2
188:12,15,23
189:8,12 193:5,12
196:6 197:6,12,19
198:11 199:11
200:6,10 202:4
204:6,14,17
205:20 206:10
207:15 209:1,11
209:21 210:22
211:3,7 212:19
214:5,13 216:5,25
217:3,5,20 221:10
226:12,18 227:25
229:15 231:12
233:8,9 235:10 | RRA 70:24 71:17
213:11,16
RRA's 71:12
rule 17:1 48:3 66:12
79:15,15 86:7
202:5 218:24
220:14 233:6
234:10
ruled 86:1 106:1
167:7 209:6 218:5
rules 52:11 208:2
ruling 54:8 57:24
61:2 78:12,20
81:17 84:1,9 86:8
106:13 122:22
149:2,19 150:1,3
151:1,22 152:10
154:16 161:6,7,21
164:23 166:21,22
168:21 171:3
179:22 183:24
192:20,24 195:21
197:21 198:14,17
199:8,19 200:24
203:6 205:5
210:11,25 211:22
211:25 212:4,7,11
212:14 213:1
215:2,5,8 216:16
217:10,11,12,15
217:24 218:2,9,22
222:20,25 223:2,3
231:8,20,23
rulings 236:15
run 116:18 | | | | requested 131:23
132:2 164:4 | responsible 92:6
rest 148:21 181:24
192:1 198:24 | 222:8
risk 191:16
road 45:13 | | | | | requests 163:21,23
189:4,5,24 | restrictions 50:18
rests 115:21 | roadmap 4:16 5:1
8:21 15:4,5,25 | rough 182:10
round 35:12 | | | | require 14:16
111:15 172:4 | result 18:13 21:1
33:17 34:19 38:23 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach 2:3,4
30:19,21 55:13,16
62:2,4,9,23 63:4
63:19 64:8 69:14
72:18,21 81:22
83:10 88:3,6
92:20 146:16,20
149:16,20 150:6
152:11,15 153:20
154:5 160:25
161:22 162:13,20
163:3,9,19 165:6
166:17,20,22,25
167:6,20 168:17
170:24 171:12,17
171:25 172:7,23
174:22 175:2
188:12,15,23
189:8,12 193:5,12
196:6 197:6,12,19
198:11 199:11
200:6,10 202:4
204:6,14,17
205:20 206:10
207:15 209:1,11
209:21 210:22
211:3,7 212:19
214:5,13 216:5,25
217:3,5,20 221:10
226:12,18 227:25
229:15 231:12
233:8,9 235:10 | RRA 70:24 71:17
213:11,16
RRA's 71:12
rule 17:1 48:3 66:12
79:15,15 86:7
202:5 218:24
220:14 233:6
234:10
ruled 86:1 106:1
167:7 209:6 218:5
rules 52:11 208:2
ruling 54:8 57:24
61:2 78:12,20
81:17 84:1,9 86:8
106:13 122:22
149:2,19 150:1,3
151:1,22 152:10
154:16 161:6,7,21
164:23 166:21,22
168:21 171:3
179:22 183:24
192:20,24 195:21
197:21 198:14,17
199:8,19 200:24
203:6 205:5
210:11,25 211:22
211:25 212:4,7,11
212:14 213:1
215:2,5,8 216:16
217:10,11,12,15
217:24 218:2,9,22
222:20,25 223:2,3
231:8,20,23
rulings 236:15
run 116:18 | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91:7,15 93:3 94:3
94:13 100:16
101:21 141:1
155:4 222:20 | rock 107:3
Rockenbach's
56:11
Rodriguez 231:7
role 190:17
roll 110:20
room 1:17 58:21
90:10 95:17
Rosenfeldt 65:8
116:4
Rothstein 1:8 34:20
37:20 50:25 51:14
53:20 65:5,8 69:2
69:4,16 70:4
75:19,25 76:12
80:21 83:18 95:8
116:4 122:13,20
128:7,8,13 139:11
183:20 200:8
205:11 229:19,22 | | | | | respectfully 58:2
109:1 119:6 | respect 54:14 85:7
91 | | | | | | 169:13 170:17 | 181:14,17 184:23 | 204:25 | 174:13 199:20 | 128:2 222:18 | | -------------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | | 171:11,24 172:18 | seconds 186:18 | services 204:23 | 212:12 | situations 61:6,6 | | 172:22 176:2,3 | section 49:17 52:15 | servicing 205:2 | showpiece 76:13 | six 44:1 153:23 | | 177:15,21 178:20 | 62:5 151:2 | serving 37:22 | shows 44:24 45:2 | 159:13,14 218:11 | | 180:6 181:4 182:8 | see 4:5,25 8:3 34:24 | 182:15 | 152:5 | sixth 19:13 23:24 | | 186:19 187:3 | 38:8,13 44:10 | set 19:16 50:14 | sic 32:13 97:15 | 36:21 49:2 | | 189:2,14 190:5,6 | 68:5,18 75:3 | 68:18 86:11 98:25 | side 33:4 47:18 54:9 | Sixty 202:6 | | 193:6,9 194:13 | 94:19 96:24 | 106:5,22 110:13 | 84:21 93:12 | Sixty-eight 216:1 | | 197:6 198:2,5,16 | 100:15 118:11 | 110:25 111:10 | 100:13 110:7 | Sixty-nine 205:23 | | 199:6,15,17 | 134:5 148:19 | 119:1,1,2 121:6 | 119:20 133:3,13 | Sixty-three 202:9 | | 200:15 201:18 | 149:13 165:12 | 131:19 207:15 | 144:9 213:19 | skills 129:15 | | 202:2,11 203:8,11 | 167:22 186:15 | 223:14,16 231:2 | 220:2 228:12 | slammed 93:5 | | 203:15,19,24 | 197:19 206:2 | 234:22,23 | sides 3:9 46:22 | slightly 213:6 | | 204:4,7 206:3,13 | 209:19 210:14 | sets 5:17 41:8 | 126:5 144:16 | slog 186:5 | | 207:9 208:10 | 211:9,10 228:4 | setting 14:6 98:8 | sight 106:24 | small 145:11 | | 210:8,9 211:8,21 | 229:20,23 230:2 | 99:10 111:6 | significance 171:7 | So.3d 4:22 | | 211:24 212:3,6,10 | 237:2 | 120:24 132:8 | significant 59:8 | sole 182:13 183:14 | | 212:25 213:6,25 | seeing 111:24 | settle 145:8 | 77:23 108:22 | solely 26:17 53:21 | | 214:4,17 215:7,11 | seek 29:8 111:6 | settled 73:18 124:16 | 112:2 123:23 | 150:15 | | 215:19 216:1 | seeking 10:14,21 | 209:3 230:18 | 124:9,12 169:23 | solicitation 177:3 | | 219:11,14 220:3 | 34:7 40:4 65:7,20 | settlement 229:25 | 192:12 213:8 | soliciting 176:19,21 | | 220:12 221:11 | 66:19 78:9,22,23 | 230:22 235:9 | significantly 191:24 | somebody 17:16 | | 222:23 223:1 | 78:23 96:23 98:7 | settlements 230:17 | similar 19:2 34:17 | 191:15 201:3 | | 225:4 227:3,4,20 | 98:25 99:21 | seven 113:21 159:1 | 52:10 81:6,7 | 219:20 228:19 | | 228:5,23 230:5 | 100:22 106:19 | 226:6 | 100:12 150:13 | somebody's 184:14 | | 231:14,15,24 | 111:7 113:1 | Seventeen 166:20 | 159:14 167:7 | somewhat 21:18 | | 232:9,17 233:25 | 147:17 149:7 | seventh 21:5 23:25 | 189:25 213:4 | 100:12 140:13 | | 234:25 235:14,19 | 182:24 183:11 | 49:12 | simple 16:18 34:15 | 164:17 | | 236:9 | 219:25 | sex 202:9,12,20 | 101:25 | son 22:9 92:11 | | Scarola's 73:14 | seeks 31:10 233:17 | 232:7 | simply 5:2 6:4 15:4 | Sonja 1:22 62:20 | | 107:6 124:24 | seemingly 22:3 | sex-offender 202:1 | 16:20 20:6 23:20 | 95:22 238:7,16 | | 136:17 144:21 | seen 35:6 41:18 | sexual 66:2,16,17 | 30:3 39:13,22 | sooner 114:13 | | 153:11 162:1 | 51:2 178:22 | 69:8 75:5 76:19 | 42:3 48:24 52:24 | sorry 80:25 85:24 | | 173:1 | 194:15 223:19 | 78:5 79:17 80:4 | 54:2 105:8 121:13 | 89:8 94:12 148:23 | | schedule 96:13 | sees 47:15 | 154:13 156:22 | 133:5 136:12 | 188:23 198:2,18 | | scheme 65:5,17 67:5 | segregated 229:5 | 177:11 230:1 | 148:16 152:8 | 206:13 207:8 | | 83:18 89:24 | self-incrimination | sexually 147:13 | 158:14 172:6 | 210:2 219:11 | | 155:11 156:2 | 108:16 | Shana 158:20 197:7 | 191:19 203:8 | 222:23 234:9 | | 183:17 194:3 | sell 71:6 | 197:15,17 216:25 | 221:11,23 | sort 144:20 152:6 | | Scherer 76:9 | sense 5:3 13:13 | 217:8 | single 13:2,6 17:1,9 | sought 52:5 70:18 | | school 22:6 157:12 | 27:13,18 46:11 | share 4:14 | 24:14 63:14 158:7 | 71:14 77:19 100:9 | | 216:19 | 58:3 117:11 141:6 | Shed 211:23 | 158:8,10 183:9 | 148:1 160:19,20 | | scope 65:6 | 141:21 | sheer 170:18 | singled 190:12,16 | 221:3 224:21 | | score 201:23 | sent 138:21 226:8 | sheet 201:23 214:22 | sir 3:6,13 10:17 | 228:13 | | Scott 1:8 2:5 3:15 | 233:24 | Sherman 36:14,16 | 30:17 31:1 84:3 | sound 3:20 104:9 | | 95:8 | sentence 9:10 37:22 | SHIPLEY 2:7 | 84:18 85:8,23 | sounds 9:6 76:5 | | scrupulously 33:4 | 98:20 139:23 | shocking 133:10 | 86:6 115:15 | 137:1 162:11,13 | | sealing 162:4 | 142:14 143:8 | shops 204:21 | 119:17,25 124:20 | 167:2 | | search 161:1,3,8,16 | 146:2 | short 16:18 221:8 | 143:22 181:2 | source 231:25 | | 161:24 162:5,6,16 | sentencing 177:8 | 226:9,10 | 188:3 192:13 | sources 169:20 | | searches 212:2 | separate 63:6 | shorter 118:2 | 200:15 201:19 | South 2:12 37:19 | | SEARCY 2:7 | 122:14 223:5 | shot 38:16 | 203:15 213:25 | Southern 97:17 | | season 221:8 | separately 216:9,10 | shouting 17:12 | 223:1 231:15,24 | 98:3,13 120:10,16 | | SEC 127:4 | separating 140:11 | show 7:23 25:18 | 232:17 235:22 | 121:23 127:6 | | second 9:10 12:2 | serial 11:16 | 41:21 67:22 143:9 | sit 101:2 | speak 22:6 40:12 | | 13:23 42:16 43:10 | serve 80:7 174:19 | 166:1 235:1 | site 195:3 | 56:24 59:3 102:20 | | 46:17 104:19 | served 87:9 98:20 | showed 4:2 69:8 | sitting 58:20 | 150:5 182:8 199:3 | | 119:12 150:19 | 177:9 | showing 156:11 | situation 107:3 | 231:24 | | 177:5 179:1 | service 1:22 95:22 | shown 130:21 | 114:11 125:8 | speaker's 232:20 | | speaking 58:18 97:9 | 190:6 202:13 | stealing 232:12,24 | subjects 16:4 | suits 18:24 | | -------------------------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | | speaks 37:8 49:4 | 207:18,20 208:1 | 233:4 | submissions 229:21 | summary 24:18 | | special 14:6 | 209:9 221:11 | stems 81:10 | submit 25:9 | 107:14 112:18,21 | | special-set 231:1 | 232:19 234:12 | stenographic | subpoena 203:14 | 116:25 117:5 | | specialist 40:3 | 238:4 | 238:10 | subpoenaing | 123:5 125:16 | | specific 9:16 19:25 | stated 12:22 15:9 | stenographically | 208:21 | 130:22 226:16 | | 26:3 31:21 55:7 | 23:14 48:12 75:8 | 238:8 | subpoenas 162:7 | summer 112:4 | | 57:17 62:6 67:19 | 91:8 105:10 | step 48:4 126:19 | 210:24 | superfluous 52:23 | | 70:14 71:21 84:4 | 134:20 155:17 | 207:4 | subsection 150:19 | superimposes 73:13 | | 86:18 142:4 | 190:2,4 191:10 | steps 38:22 | 150:20 | supplement 94:9 | | 145:19 151:15 | 214:23 218:16 | stifle 35:6 | subsequent 81:7 | 155:3 | | 153:6 177:17 | statement 5:8 6:16 | stipulate 187:8 | 121:10 | support 23:7 29:17 | | 192:8 219:8 | 24:1 31:14 40:22 | 188:1 | substantial 113:19 | 29:19 39:16 67:14 | | 222:11 236:17 | 40:23 44:11,12,15 | stipulated 188:4 | 207:10 | 117:8 131:5 135:4 | | specifically 44:14 | 52:25 54:22 57:19 | stipulation 104:3 | substantially | supported 67:3 | | 49:5 50:9 54:17 | 73:21 74:6 82:19 | 163:10,15 186:20 | 233:11 | 176:9 195:12 | | 66:11 69:20 71:22 | 85:16 89:19,21 | 186:24 187:5 | substantively | supporting 65:17 | | 105:10 125:12 | 126:1 136:18 | 188:9 | 122:16 | supports 119:7 | | 166:7,8 229:4 | 139:13,25 145:2 | stop 43:15 202:2,4 | successful 114:1 | supposed 132:9 | | specificity 219:7 | 158:20 178:9 | stopped 45:14 62:10 | sue 11:21 | 142:13,15 | | specifics 152:9 | 207:25 232:14,18 | storage 204:22 | sued 11:12 21:4 | Supreme 4:8,9,12 | | specified 24:13 | 233:1 234:8,9,11 | stores 204:21 | 73:18 200:5 | 4:15,17,21,25 5:2 | | 156:24 | 235:3 | story 160:7 | sues 89:14,15 | 5:7,19,23 6:9 7:1 | | speech 10:25 215:18 | statements 3:24 | strangely 176:16 | suffered 44:1 | 7:9 8:22 12:22 | | speeches 40:1 | 5:10,10,11 7:18 | strategic 108:10 | 124:10 185:19 | 15:17 16:19 18:20 | | spend 192:1 | 8:6,7,8,12,20 9:1 | strategies 108:21 | suffering 114:16 | 22:12 23:14 25:16 | | spent 14:20 58:22 | 10:12 11:14,22 | strategy 109:2 | sufficiency 28:11,25 | 41:25 42:6 47:9 | | 72:24 137:5 229:5 | 18:14 20:12 22:17 | stream 124:4 | sufficient 14:18 | 47:25 50:6 87:23 | | spring 112:4 | 26:6,11 37:2 47:7 | strength 153:8 | 74:23 130:9 | 88:1 127:9 137:4 | | square 35:12 | 51:13,13 88:10,11 | 158:5 159:23 | 137:14 | 173:19 | | squarely 13:20 | 88:15 89:13 108:5 | 178:5 | suggest 11:25 55:25 | sure 20:21 28:17 | | SS 238:4 | 140:5 152:13 | stretch 21:18 | 103:6 119:6 | 32:24 38:18 55:15 | | stage 221:12 | 153:17 154:1,7 | stricken 197:14 | 131:20 140:10 | 61:14 72:20 82:9 | | stages 117:13 | 186:4 193:21 | strike 27:10 28:11 | 143:19 145:18 | 86:6 91:15 102:13 | | 131:16 | 200:1 234:3 | 28:24 29:6 118:10 | 172:10 178:2 | 155:17 167:25 | | stand 8:19 85:5 | 50:6,10 52:14 | 127:11 193:14 | 191:14 194:15 | 171:11,21,24 | | 109:13,23 111:17 | 127:8,9 176:25 | 195:7 197:13 | 231:2 | 174:24 182:2 | | 125:1 145:5 | stating 152:8 | 201:2 218:11 | suggested 38:4 | 184:15 185:24 | | 175:17 184:3 | status 125:16 | strip 16:24 | 111:25 131:10 | 202:14 203:11 | | 185:14 220:4 | 176:24 | strippers 185:20 | suggesting 27:25 | 204:16 210:2,23 | | 222:6 | statute 10:7 17:4 | stripping 157:21 | 67:23 87:22 88:25 | 229:17 233:5 | | standard 44:7,16 | 79:13 101:3,9 | strong 145:6 157:3 | 101:17 108:1 | 236:11 | | 137:16 155:14 | 120:5 213:3,18 | struggle 144:20,21 | 122:4 130:10 | surprise 169:8,9 | | standards 41:9 | statutes 24:21 | student 157:12 | 158:13 220:12 | surveillance 217:13 | | standing 131:11 | 101:12 116:16 | 216:22 | 226:13 | susceptible 116:6 | | standpoint 36:24 | statutory 52:19 | students 22:8 | suggestion 49:14 | suspect 27:21 | | 61:1 | stay 56:18 57:4,8 | stuff 93:6 | 56:12 91:24 92:19 | sustain 56:11 123:3 | | stands 32:25 89:17 | 92:3,6 96:5,19 | subject 50:18 53:5 | 222:2 | 123:19 160:2 | | start 3:3 21:10 | 99:21 100:4 | 77:14 87:25 88:9 | suggests 86:10 | 164:24 180:5 | | 43:11 61:11 91:20 | 105:25 106:8,9,20 | 99:1 119:17 | 179:7 | 196:13,25 199:24 | | 136:5 192:4 | 111:2,11,14 113:1 | 122:22 123:13 | suit 7:7 11:11 22:18 | 209:7 210:12 | | started 54:13 107:8 | 113:5,7 115:18 | 126:21 129:3 | 23:21 34:20 | 214:11 217:4 | | 121:21 193:22 | 117:6,16,18,21,23 | 171:6 174:17 | 109:25 122:11 | 219:6 | | starting 6:5 61:22 | 118:2,6,23 121:15 | 182:16 | 130:6,16 131:9 | sustained 161:9 | | 63:9 138:19 | 125:9,11,13,20 | subjective 137:18 | 138:17 140:19 | 166:23 168:15 | | starts 68:7 | 127:13 131:22 | 137:24 144:1,6 | 144:2,8 171:10 | 186:10 198:9,19 | | state 44:19 119:21 | 132:1 134:16,19 | 155:23 156:4 | 172:15 189:19 | 200:20,22 202:7 | | 168:18 171:20,22 | staying 235:12 | 184:14 | Suite 1:23 2:3,12 | 204:5,9 206:7 | | 172:3 173:9,25 | | | 95:23 | 207:14 210:4 | | 212:12 214:23 | 142:1 184:17 | thank 3:9 12:7,8 | 45:7 46:11 57:13 | 63:9,17 70:17 | | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------- | | 217:24 218:15 | 185:21 189:11 | 30:10,17,21 33:8 | 57:13 58:11 60:24 | 73:17 75:23 76:20 | | 222:4,16 231:16 | 191:11,13 192:4,5 | 39:18 48:1,2 | 63:13 64:14 73:13 | 77:11,21 79:9 | | 231:22 | 211:19 216:21 | 78:19 82:17 84:18 | 77:7 82:5,6,7,12 | 80:15 83:2,7,16 | | sustaining 77:15 | 219:12 235:21 | 85:8,23 94:18,18 | 82:25 84:18 87:16 | 90:11 98:5 102:14 | | 152:10 174:23 | | 96:9,13,18 97:24 | 90:2,3 91:4,7 | 106:3,4 111:4 | | 225:17 | 18:3 41:5 42:10 | 104:18 105:1 | 92:13,17 93:20 | 125:25 126:3 | | swap 81:23 | 126:15 | 115:3 124:20,21 | 94:14 96:4,16,20 | 128:4 139:3 | | sworn 152:22 157:9 | | 126:5 134:21 | 97:21 111:16 | 154:24 156:20 | | 208:23 | tangential 77:8 | 135:16 146:12 | 112:17,23 114:7,9 | 158:9,22 159:17 | | system 6:3,4 196:8 | | 149:20 152:11 | 122:3,17 127:14 | 161:13 167:4 | | | tangentially 210:15 | 167:6 181:11 | 127:20 131:13 | 168:13 169:2 | | T | tax 164:9 200:1 | 188:4,8 192:13,14 | 138:12 139:24,25 | 170:7 176:8 178:5 | | T-Mobile 162:8 | | 198:9 199:6 | 146:17 148:3 | 178:7,14,18 180:3 | | T.M 98:5 102:6 | teacher 22:6 | 201:21 203:4 | 151:16 153:5,6 | 182:20 183:15 | | table 56:17 200:25 | teaching 22:8 | 211:3 221:10 | 155:13,15 157:10 | 185:7,11,12,13 | | 201:5,9,11,19 | team 69:21,21,24 | 233:9 235:10 | 160:15,22,22 | 187:9 191:21 | | tag-along 25:15 | | 236:24 | 163:11 164:17 | 197:22 198:1,21 | | take 30:23 35:8 | Ted 211:23 | Thanks 63:3 64:4 | 167:21 168:11 | 210:15 218:3 | | 38:16,23 40:21 | telephone 147:11,15 | 68:3,17 72:17 | 170:9 171:17 | 226:9 230:4,10 | | 55:9,24 61:12,14 | | 135:19 199:7 | 172:13 175:6 | three-filed 145:1 | | 63:7 64:6 67:12 | tell 87:24 89:11 | 235:11 | 176:11,15 181:22 | three-minute 61:12 | | 68:16 70:6 79:12 | | theory 49:9 190:11 | 181:22 183:23,25 | threshold 74:11,18 | | 92:22 93:11,21 | | therefrom 107:16 | 187:1,22 188:12 | thrust 107:5 | | 96:6 135:14 | telling 93:1,22 | thereof 83:24 | 188:24 193:16 | Thursday 55:21 | | 147:18 148:1 | | 133:12 | 196:22 201:5 | 94:11 163:18 | | 160:8 164:13 | tells 6:9,17 7:9 | thick 55:4,5 | 215:24 217:6 | 236:2,14 237:3 | | 178:4 186:17 | | thief 89:18 | 219:20 224:5 | tie 139:10 | | 191:16 192:15,21 | | thin 26:18 | 226:2,20 231:5 | time 1:16,19 12:2 | | 192:25 193:17 | temper 85:16 | thing 6:21 7:5,23 | 232:2 | 13:19 14:20 26:24 | | 194:13,15 195:14 | temporarily 111:11 | 24:14 47:16 79:24 | thinking 37:17 61:1 | 35:7 36:9 41:3 | | 200:16 203:2 | ten 143:5 146:17 | 88:4 90:18 92:23 | thinks 82:10 | 48:4 53:25 56:13 | | 205:15,22 209:17 | tend 209:5 | 93:10 94:2,8 99:8 | third 13:25 42:18 | 57:5 58:6,12,22 | | 209:22 210:3,20 | tends 175:24 | 104:19 111:22 | 71:7 90:21 105:16 | 59:9,11 60:10,23 | | 213:12,22 223:5 | tension 144:17 | 112:23 120:18 | 108:7 147:23 | 64:6 74:13 75:16 | | 225:16 226:17 | term 42:17 59:24 | 148:13 159:19 | 148:1 164:8 177:4 | 77:22 92:4 93:1,4 | | 234:21 235:5,23 | termination 17:24 | 164:9 180:1 183:9 | 208:22 234:3 | 94:4 95:16,19 | | taken 1:16 13:11 | | 190:1 198:13,14 | third-party 207:22 | 96:20 100:9 | | 18:11 50:20 52:2 | terminology 42:21 | 199:8 201:8 205:3 | thirteen 218:25 | 104:21 106:9 | | 95:16 104:2 | terms 54:5 89:3 | 208:5 215:2 222:5 | Thirty-five 69:23 | 111:3,12,20 | | 133:11,16,21 | | 227:19 | 192:18 | 112:11 117:22 | | 167:9 178:15 | | things 17:5 33:9 | Thirty-six 70:16 | 121:10,23 122:16 | | 182:17 195:7,17 | | 39:24 58:16 65:16 | 192:23 | 124:17 128:25 | | 200:23 210:21 | test 9:3 87:20 | 81:3 89:1,2 108:4 | Thirty-three 68:25 | 129:11 130:16,22 | | 216:16 227:10 | | 111:4,12 121:16 | thirty-two 232:5 | 138:21,22 140:9 | | 229:15 231:5,6 | testified 64:22 76:2 | 125:1 131:16 | thought 30:1 43:14 | 140:18 143:16 | | takes 133:22 142:19 | | 137:13 145:15 | 63:10 73:1 87:7 | 144:1,12 162:24 | | 183:19 | | 152:2 156:5,17 | 91:13 103:21 | 164:15,24 165:5 | | talk 5:14,18 8:19 | testify 99:15 109:8 | 157:2,7,25 159:21 | 126:8,18 181:19 | 165:18 169:11 | | 9:1 16:3 39:7 60:2 | | 160:1 183:22 | 183:10 187:3 | 170:23 172:15,20 | | 77:4 81:5 93:16 | | 184:16 189:23 | 209:19 235:17 | 176:1 177:9 | | 118:20 131:15 | | 190:2 198:25 | thoughts 71:2 | 180:10 182:14,15 | | 148:5 156:5 157:2 | | 202:18 205:11 | 174:16 | 182:21 187:22 | | talked 18:21 20:14 | | 206:14 208:19 | thousand 91:4 | 196:25 198:7 | | 36:23 37:9 114:7 | | 218:14 224:4 | thousands 223:19 | 200:17 203:3 | | 163:13 200:19 | | 226:12 | 223:21,22 | 205:10,15 206:3,9 | | 215:22 231:19 | | think 6:2,4 14:24 | three 5:17 6:17 8:2 | 217:24 225:1,2,7 | | 235:17 | testing 36:11 87:3 | 30:22 31:14 38:19 | 8:7 13:21 29:12 | 227:15,18 228:7 | | talking 88:2 136:1 | tethered 88:23 | 41:24 42:1,20 | 31:15 38:24 54:24 | 228:15,16,23,24 | | 229:2,5,20,23 | 58:18 59:5,13 | twice 136:6 | 94:19 177:21 | various 113:3 | | --------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------- | | 230:3 231:5 | 60:6 61:10 73:11 | two 5:16,20 13:15 | 179:18 | 122:19 208:14,17 | | 234:22 235:6,7 | 91:8 92:9 106:2 | 35:15 36:9 46:19 | understands 51:8 | vary 61:8 | | 236:1,25 237:1 | 112:14 117:20 | 63:15 68:7 79:10 | underway 61:10 | vast 147:12 157:6 | | timeline 127:24 | 123:5 131:18 | 89:6,11 90:11 | undue 180:17,21 | vehicle 201:13,14 | | 128:22 | 132:11 133:7 | 91:19,20 118:24 | unequivocally | 201:15,16 | | timeliness 132:24 | 151:14 182:19 | 131:6 132:6 | 25:12 | vehicles 180:24 | | 132:24 | 184:12 185:11 | 137:12 138:14,25 | unfair 81:4 233:12 | 202:16 204:18,21 | | timely 28:9 | 222:7 228:14,17 | 139:1 144:16 | unforeseen 93:15 | 211:5 | | times 6:17 31:15 | 235:1 | 146:2 177:2 | unique 18:9 | vehicular 118:13 | | 90:11 91:4 109:22 | tricking 76:12 | 181:25 206:14 | United 49:16 50:6 | versa 32:21 | | 131:21,24 147:14 | tried 13:12 50:22 | 216:3 217:25 | 52:14 127:8,9 | versus 4:19 114:9 | | 159:14 185:17 | 64:20 141:23 | 223:13 229:24 | University 191:1 | 127:4,8 140:12 | | timing 172:14 | 180:13 197:11 | two-part 197:16 | unleveled 80:9 | 172:16 | | titled 204:17 | trier 144:18 180:22 | type 27:16,17 83:17 | unprecedented 98:7 | viability 178:17 | | today 12:14 30:1 | trigger 150:8 | 107:23,25 127:20 | 98:23 | viable 66:7 94:8 | | 57:7 92:4,12,18 | triggering 26:9 | 134:5 141:6 190:3 | unrelated 19:22 | vice 32:21 | | 105:5 115:21 | Trilateral 212:16 | 201:8 205:3 | unsupervised | victim 103:22 | | 128:11 132:9 | truck 110:20 | 227:19 228:21 | 177:14 | 116:10 120:7 | | 134:8 160:17 | true 4:6 31:25 43:14 | typed 188:5 | Unsworn 232:14 | 158:9,19 176:16 | | 176:5 186:5 217:2 | 43:14 45:25 46:2 | types 101:3,11 | untimely 26:21 | 177:18 179:2 | | 222:6 235:13 | 119:25 142:14 | 177:13 | untrue 71:24 | 196:20,21 197:4 | | 236:25 | 187:18,23 238:10 | typical 118:9 | 139:17 142:5 | 216:20 | | told 4:13,15,17 | truth 9:4,25 10:11 | typically 27:7 | unusual 207:4 | victim's 216:18,19 | | 31:10 41:9 45:11 | 41:22 47:23 86:18 | 101:13 129:23 | upholds 120:3 | victims 34:10 | | 47:25 71:8 92:14 | 88:10 136:19 | 162:22 | use 40:23 41:20,22 | 156:20 158:10 | | 93:4 138:2 181:19 | 232:15 233:2 | | 43:24 72:18 84:12 | 161:12 165:18 | | top 201:10 224:5 | try 10:11 12:2,5 | | 102:24 105:15 | 166:2 176:8,25 | | tort 108:18 134:5 | 15:24 35:6,18 | U | 175:19 186:14 | 185:12 213:13,17 | | tortious 17:7 | 53:11 56:8 75:4 | U.S 75:19 196:21 | 197:18 201:15 | 213:21 219:3 | | torts 50:17 | 76:18 78:3 85:2 | uh-huh 139:23 | uses 42:17 | 230:1 | | touch 40:14 | 91:22 101:2 | ultimately 17:21 | usually 27:4 218:23 | victims' 75:6 97:15 | | touched 185:15,16 | 110:20 112:1 | 107:14 130:23 | 220:13 | 97:22,23 108:13 | | 185:16,17 | 113:10 142:3 | 144:17 230:18 | Utah 191:2 | 119:10,15 120:3 | | touching 185:21 | 143:7,12 154:13 | umbrella 11:2 | utilities 204:22 | 120:24 133:8 | | track 200:9 | 165:23,24 182:9 | unable 178:1 | utilization 34:1 | 152:13 153:17 | | traditional 35:1 | 185:14 194:17 | unadulterated | 50:23 | 154:1,7 190:23 | | traditionally 27:9 | 208:22 233:17 | 83:25 | utilized 45:19 | 196:23 219:2 | | transcript 1:14 6:20 | 236:5 | unaware 116:13 | 102:17 103:9 | 220:7 221:15 | | 51:3 95:14 135:15 | trying 3:23 4:4 7:18 | 165:21 | | 222:8 226:5 | | 200:23 238:9 | 15:25 25:6 29:3 | uncertainty 179:21 | | 234:24 | | transcripts 216:20 | 77:24 81:2,12 | unclear 90:2 | V-I-S-O-S-K-I | video 161:1,3,16 | | transfer 181:5 | 126:18 133:18 | underaged 68:21 | 180:24 | 195:2,13 203:23 | | transferable 189:25 | 140:3 145:17 | 70:3 78:4 | vacuum 141:14 | videotaped 203:16 | | transpires 88:24 | 150:12 158:24 | underlying 147:5 | vague 165:12,13 | view 35:24 40:9 | | transpiring 128:3 | 159:5,13 167:14 | 147:19 | valid 13:5 23:9 30:6 | 51:22 78:12 | | transportation 66:9 | 174:4,4 185:11,22 | understand 3:2 | 50:1 | 132:25 144:11 | | 66:21 70:23 | 186:4,5 209:2 | 14:21 78:20 84:2 | validity 30:2 120:4 | 184:19 223:14 | | transported 65:24 | 225:7 | 84:22 93:2 96:12 | 126:23 127:17 | violated 36:13 | | 65:25 66:5 79:1 | Tuesday 1:16 95:16 | 97:11 101:21 | valuable 147:9 | violates 8:21 | | 156:12 | tugs 99:4 | 103:13 107:21 | value 64:17 77:3 | violations 36:11,17 | | trash 167:11,15 | turn 5:16 8:2 110:2 | 108:9 136:10,22 | 78:13 83:22 114:9 | Virgin 100:2 | | travel 204:23 | 135:18 | 153:9,11 172:8 | 143:15 151:9 | Virginia 103:24 | | treat 53:25 | turned 172:4,17 | 174:6,24 183:24 | 159:10 160:16 | virtually 156:15 | | treated 53:17 207:3 | turning 80:3 | 191:15 196:16 | 188:20 196:17 | virtue 34:7 36:7 | | treating 228:20 | Twenty 164:16 | 223:4 | 230:11 233:11 | 114:20 133:6 | | treatment 224:3 | Twenty-seven | understandably | values 183:16 | visitation 150:2,11 | | 228:18 | 166:15 | 163:14 | Vanessa 211:5 | 159:20 | | trial 14:12 27:5,6 | Twenty-three 165:6 | understanding 62:1 | vantage 59:16 | Visoski's 180:24 | Vitale 2:9 225:21\ 228:4 229:14\ voice 148:24\ volume 1:12 95:12\ 171:8\ voluntarily 39:2\ 58:2,15 103:23\ 117:5\ voluntary 227:9\ volunteer 111:5\ volunteered 54:16\ 54:19\ volunteers 59:7\ vs 1:7 95:7 215:9\ vulnerability\ 190:18 **W** waiting 14:12 115:1\ 135:19\ waive 11:18 119:8\ waived 177:8\ waiver 164:7,9\ walk-through 195:2\ want 3:3 7:23 9:8\ 11:25 12:1 30:19\ 32:6,9 33:5 40:13\ 42:1 46:21 47:1,2\ 55:1 79:25 80:2\ 80:14 81:13,18\ 85:16 91:14 101:6\ 102:13 103:5\ 104:12 105:14\ 106:7 110:5\ 113:10 122:13\ 123:12 124:23,25\ 130:12 141:18\ 146:6,10 155:3,16\ 159:12 172:8\ 174:24 182:6\ 183:12 184:15\ 187:4 203:19,25\ 209:22 210:8\ 221:20 222:9\ 223:3,8 227:3\ 228:3\ wanted 54:20 56:24\ 57:4 99:20 156:25\ 176:3\ wanting 100:14\ wants 8:4 74:4 75:4\ 114:12 220:8\ Warner 91:5\ warrant 6:5 161:1,8\ 161:16,25 162:5,6\ 162:16 212:5\ wasn't 31:25 124:12\ 161:4 178:6\ waste 28:14 60:9,23 wasted 59:11\ wasting 58:11\ way 25:22 32:3 39:4\ 39:12 68:1 76:20\ 83:12 86:8 91:5\ 93:6 102:3 103:6\ 114:21 122:17\ 123:4 124:6 125:1\ 125:8 137:8\ 157:18,19 173:15\ 174:13 177:1\ 183:25 187:10\ 195:13 207:2\ 218:24 232:3\ 233:6\ ways 29:13 202:18\ we're 4:4 36:6 37:4\ 45:8 60:1 76:6\ 125:15 183:3\ 184:12 185:8,9,21\ 194:13 223:14,15\ 236:2\ we've 11:4 64:16\ 86:8 184:16\ weak 139:9 143:10\ 143:11,14,16\ 145:1,12 184:12\ 184:13,13\ weaknesses 159:23\ website 20:12\ 212:21\ week 32:5 34:18\ 54:14 100:13\ 103:3 128:10\ 129:3 144:10\ weekend 72:25\ weeks 14:5\ weigh 113:24 114:3\ weighing 140:17\ weight 44:24 45:2\ WEISS 2:12\ Welcome 3:1\ well-founded\ 105:23 147:8\ 186:23 187:14\ well-known 40:7\ 54:3 88:21\ well-stated 129:21\ went 18:1 22:5\ 39:11 72:24 78:8\ 91:5\ weren't 84:23\ 129:15 175:4\ West 1:17,23 2:4,8\ 2:13 95:17,23\ whatsoever 38:13\ 48:10 157:19\ 196:11 224:3\ wherewithal 140:24 wholly 77:2\ 149:5\ 79:15\ willing 58:9,15 93:9\ 103:9 187:7 188:1\ win 11:12\ wish 54:18 102:18\ 134:23 141:1\ 188:13\ witness 57:20 63:23\ 104:14 109:23\ 175:16 210:14\ witnesses 5:10 9:12\ 66:24 73:23 88:12\ 90:7 141:5 147:16\ 208:15,17\ Wolfe 88:15,18 91:9\ women 65:25 70:3\ 73:18 77:21\ 106:11 125:25\ 126:3,4 154:24\ 168:14 210:18\ word 71:4 76:1,4\ 112:21 139:8\ 184:11,12\ words 7:4 9:17,20\ 43:24 45:19 52:10\ 73:25 119:21\ 122:18 139:10\ 179:14 182:6\ 184:7,9 193:1\ work 63:24 91:24\ 173:4\ worked 20:13\ 145:13\ working 63:22\ 86:16 193:16\ 235:12\ works 64:2\ worms 122:15\ worry 104:11 109:8\ worth 163:12 231:5\ wouldn't 38:12\ 116:17 157:1\ 171:12 185:6\ 220:23\ wrap 46:20\ wrapping 182:1\ write 85:5\ written 30:11 47:3\ 117:12 126:6\ wrong 15:4 25:10\ 122:5 162:11,13\ 171:19 176:14\ 178:20 200:11\ wrongful 7:4\ wrongs 150:14\ wrote 122:6 129:7 215:23\ X\ X 177:2\ Y\ Yeah 64:7 135:9\ yearbooks 165:8,10\ 165:13\ years 14:4,10 26:24\ 37:23 99:7 103:14\ 113:17,22 115:17\ 116:8,12,21\ 120:19 121:11,12\ 123:24 124:13\ 181:23 226:6\ years' 219:21\ yesterday 55:18,23\ 94:6\ yielded 73:8\ York 2:17 100:2\ 127:6 202:13\ 232:5 235:4\ young 65:25 77:21\ 104:8 154:24\ 157:5 159:17\ 168:13 210:17\ 216:21 Z\ 211:5\ zeal 34:7,12 0\ 06 213:3\ 08 189:13\ 09 131:9 183:19\ 184:20,21 189:13 1\ 1 98:6 102:7 215:9\ 1/13 221:9\ 1:20 91:17 94:20\ 1:25 94:21\ 10 81:24 103:13\ 109:22 186:17\ 189:7 236:4 237:3\ 10:02 1:16 95:16\ 100 103:12 140:5\ 1001 1:23 95:23\ 10022 2:17\ 101 225:22\ 106 218:23\ 10C 1:17 95:17\ 11/28/04 212:9\ 11:16 61:17\ 11:24 61:17\ 113 219:12 223:5\ 225:18 226:14 228:10\ 114 226:15\ 119 235:9\ 12 70:20 236:4\ 12/7/09 88:8\ 12:09 94:21\ 12:30 236:4\ 13 112:14 138:14\ 14 143:2 152:14\ 153:5 166:17\ 1400 2:12\ 15 63:5 93:21 143:2\ 152:12 153:16\ 159:2 166:18\ 216:10 219:9\ 221:7 225:22\ 226:4,13\ 15-day 216:14\ 15-minute 93:12\ 153 68:7\ 1555 2:3\ 16 160:25\ 1665 1:23 95:23\ 17 161:7,23 162:19\ 18 102:15 161:22\ 177:5 179:11\ 19 165:2\ 1951 127:10\ 1974 50:7\ 19th 213:3\ 1st 205:21 2\ 2 79:14 156:22\ 215:9\ 2,000 168:19 173:9\ 2,000-page 168:24\ 2:00 93:14\ 20 163:4\ 20-page 139:14\ 200 64:14 156:21\ 2003 212:17\ 2006 205:21\ 2008 175:9 182:12\ 183:4 185:7\ 2009 87:21 107:11\ 115:8,22 128:3\ 129:10,12,17\ 172:21\ 2010 73:19\ 2011 107:12 232:8\ 2017 1:16 95:16\ 129:13,18 238:13\ 2018 112:4,14\ 205 1:17 95:17\ 2139 2:8\ 22nd 209:12\ 23 61:22 165:8\ 166:15,25 25 232:8\ 250 2:12\ 26 165:7 166:15,25\ 27 166:22\ 276 68:9\ 277 68:9\ 278 68:10\ 279 68:10\ 28 167:7,20\ 29 168:17\ 29th 6:18 56:3\ 59:23 72:23 74:16\ 138:20 175:15\ 2nd 211:16 3 3,000 222:7,10\ 30 175:9 221:9\ 223:23 224:19\ 225:23\ 30-day 225:7\ 300 156:23\ 301 2:3\ 32 180:23 188:14,15\ 323 50:7\ 33 188:12,24\ 33401 1:23 2:4,13\ 95:23\ 33409 2:8\ 34 68:25 69:4\ 341 127:8\ 35 68:13,25 69:19\ 188:16\ 36 68:25 70:13 4 4 49:17\ 4:35 1:16 95:16\ 237:6\ 40 46:20 121:8\ 156:14 188:11,13\ 193:5 194:10\ 223:23\ 40-something 70:10\ 401 175:10\ 403 77:16 78:15\ 114:8 175:11\ 406.12 44:8\ 406.4 173:17\ 41.5 66:12\ 415(g) 79:15\ 415.5(g) 66:12\ 418 50:7\ 42(k) 70:15 71:8\ 42(l) 115:23\ 471-2995 1:24\ 95:24\ 479 127:9\ 486 127:9 49 198:13\ 5\ 5 132:8\ 5.2 145:6\ 5.5 145:7,8\ 5/30/2008 158:20\ 50 37:23 198:14\ 223:23\ 502009CA040800...\ 1:3 95:3\ 51 198:15\ 52 199:8\ 55 46:21\ 561 1:24 95:24\ 575 2:16\ 5th 1:16 95:16 6 6/30/08 200:24\ 60 202:5\ 62 202:5,6\ 65 41:18\ 67 41:18\ 68 210:4\ 7\ 7 167:8\ 7,000 222:10\ 70 206:11 207:16,22\ 223:23\ 71 206:11\ 72 206:12\ 73 206:12\ 74 206:12 207:16\ 75 139:19 209:10\ 210:6\ 76 210:22\ 79 139:15\ 7th 87:21 238:13 8 82 6:20\ 88 215:1\ 9\ 9 52:15 56:3 81:24\ 115:8,22 138:14\ 183:19 184:21\ 226:8\ 90 215:4\ 90.403 64:17\ 90.404 79:13 233:19\ 90.404(2) 150:10,17\ 90.410 213:3\ 90.610 175:13\ 99 140:5\ 9th 184:20 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v . SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. Cos ### PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S AMENDED EX IBIT LIST Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey E l c S1 ice y files this list of the trial exhibits he may introduce at the trial of this matter. ### IN DE OBJECTIONS - 0. No Objection 5. Privileged - 1. All objections 6. Opinion - 2. All objectio cept thenticity 7. Hearsay - 3. Irrelev aterial 8. Authenticity lacking - 4. P value substantially outweighed 9. Other (please identify basis of objection) by da ger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] and L.M.
15th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMB | | | | | | | 1 | 12/7/09 | Complaint with Exhibits | | | | | 2 | 12/21/09 | Answer and Counterclaim of Defendant [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 3 | 1/21/10 | Default against Scott Rothstein | | | | | 4 | 8/2/10
8/9/10 | Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice as to L.M., Individually Only | | | | | 5 | 3/27/12 | Notice of Appearance of [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 6 | 8/16/12 | Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 7 | 1/9/13 | [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] Fourth Amended Counterclaim | | | | | 8 | 9/25/13 | Affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein | | | | | 9 | 6/30/17 | Affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein | | | | | 10 | 6/30/17 | Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment, Appendix in Support and all documents cited therein | | | | | 11 | Misc. | All deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes including, but not limited to:
a. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (3/23/10; 5/15/13; 10/10/13; 11/10/17)
b. Jeffrey Epstein (3/17/10; 1/25/12)
c. Scott Rothstein (6/14/12)
d. [REDACTED] Adler (4/20/11)
e. Abrakas Joseph Di [REDACTED] (5/25/11)
f. [REDACTED] Russell Kretschmar (2/11/11)
g. Michael Legamaro (3/11/11)
h. Courtney Wild (10/12/17) | | | | | 12 | Misc. | Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
Answers, Responses, Objections and Privilege Logs in response to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, Requests for Production, and Subpoenas Duces Tecum | | | | | 13 | Misc. | All documents produced by any party or non-party in this matter | | | | | 14 | Misc. | All documents filed in the court file, including pleadings, motions, responses, affidavits, discovery, and exhibits | | | | | 15 | Misc. | All hearing transcripts | | | | | | | | | | | | State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein
15th Judicial Circuit | | | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked | | --- | ------- | ----------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------ | | 16 | 4/24/07 | Transcript of Taped Statement of | | | | 17 | Misc. | All other testimony, transcripts and statements | | | ## L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Paul Visoski, Jr. and (2) Da Ac r a. L.M. (9 • 9/10) L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein USDC S.D. Fla. Case No. 09-CV-81092 et tco, all court filings referenced therein and .Sek | L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein
15 th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2008-CA-028051XXXXMB | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | | 18 | Misc. | Court docket and all court filings referenced therein | | | | 19 | 9/11/08 | Complaint | | | | 20 | 12/23/08 | Amended Complaint | | | | 21 | 3/30/09 | Notice of Change of Firm and Address | | | | 22 | 4/7/09 | Defendant Epstein's Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint | | | | 23 | 8/19/09
9/11/09 | Notices of Production from Non Parties: (1) Stephen Alexander, M.D.; (2) Bruce W. Markowitz, M.D.; and (3) Charles J. Galecki, M.D. | | | | 24 | 8/24/09 | Notices of Taking Deposition and Subpoenas to (1) Paul Visoski, Jr. and (2) David Hart Rogers | | | | 25 | 8/11/09 | Plaintiff's Request for Production to Defendant | | | | 26 | 8/19/09 | Defendant Epstein's Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint | | | | 27 | 5/28/10 | Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint | | | | 28 | 7/22/10 | Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice | | | | 29 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes including, but not limited to:
a. L.M. (9/24/09; 2/9/10) | | | | | | L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein .Sek | | --- | ----- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | | 30 | Misc. | C \$n et | | | | . al al ery and discovery responses tco | | 31 | 7/24/ | o i . laint and Demand for Jury Trial | | 32 | 7/2 | tipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (D.E. 21) | | 33 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes | | 34 | | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule I I | | | | E.W. it. Jeffrey Epstein | | --- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | 35 | Misc. | Court docket, all court filings referenced therein and | | 36 | 9/10/08 | Complaint | | No. | Date | Description Objection Marked | | --- | -------- | --------------------------------------------------- | | 37 | 12/23/08 | Amended | | 38 | 3/30/09 | Notice of Change | | 39 | 4/6/09 | Defendant Epstein's Answer & Affirmative | | 40 | 6/2/09 | Defendant Epstein's Motion for Order to Terminate | | 41 | 7/16/09 | Cross Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of | | 42 | 8/19/09 | Defendant Epstein's Answer & Affirmative | | | | Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint CO | | 43 | 8/10/09 | Plaintiffs Request try Upon | | 44 | 5/28/10 | Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint | | 45 | 7/22/10 | Stipulation J | | 46 | 7/29/10 | Order Adopting Stipulation and Dismissin | | 47 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition | | 48 | Misc. | | | | | Court docket, l m referenced therein and | | 49 | 8/12/08 | (D | | 50 | 3/26/09 | | | | | P mgs with Incorporated | | | | Action for ertain Based on Parallel Civil and | | | | Defendant tein's Motion to Stay and/or Continue | | | | dum of Law 24) | | 51 | 4/9/09 | of Address and Firm Affiliation 30 | | 52 | 4/9/09 \_ | amtiff's Motion to Strike References to Non | | 53 | 4/17/09 | Plaintiffs First Amended Com . laint • | | 54 | 5/14/09 | Order Consolidating Cases for Purposes of | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 55 | 7/28/09 to 10/22/09 | Notices of Taking Deposition and Subpoenas to: Ghislane Noelle Maxwell, Leslie Wexler, Donald Trump, Mark Epstein, [REDACTED], Jean Luc Bruhel, [REDACTED], Michael Freidman, Rosalie Freidman, and Michael Sanka | | | | | 56 | 7/20/10 | Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (D.E. 210) | | | | | 57 | 7/20/10 | Final Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (D.E. 211) | | | | | 58 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes | | | | | Jane Doe 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein (Consolidated Action)
USDC S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-CV-80119 | | | | | | | 59 | Misc. | Court docket, all court filings referenced therein and all discovery and discovery responses | | | | | 60 | 6/19/09 | Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein and to Post a \$15 Million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment (D.E. 165) | | | | | 61 | 7/23/09 | Plaintiff Jane Doe's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein and to Post a \$15 Million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment (D.E. 217) | | | | | 62 | 10/16/09 | Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice that Additional Evidence of Epstein's Fraudulent Asset Transfers Will be Filed Shortly, etc. (D.E. 357) | | | | | 63 | 10/30/09 | Plaintiff Jane Doe's Motion for Leave to Provide Recently-Obtained Deposition Testimony and Affidavit Demonstrating Fraudulent Transfers by Epstein in Support of Motion for Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein and Incorporated Supporting Memo of Law (D.E. 386) | | | | | 64 | 11/5/09 | Order (D.E. 400) | | | | | 65 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes | | | | | Jane Doe v. United States of America (CVRA)
USDC S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-CIV | | | | | | | 66 | 7/7/08 | Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 (D.E. 1) | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | ------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 67 | 8/14/08 | Transcript of Hearing Before the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ### Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler and Stuart Rosenfeldt v. Scott W. Rothstein 17th Judicial Circuit Broward County Case No. 2009-CA-059301-AXXXCE | 68 | Misc. | Court docket, all court filings referenced therein and | | --- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | 69 | 11/3/09 | Amended Complaint | | 70 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and | ## In re O % Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA USBC S.D. Ha. Case No. 09-34791-RB | 71 | 11/16/09 | Motion of the U.S. Trustee for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee and Objection to Retention of Chief Restructuring Officer (D.E. 8) | | | | | --- | -------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | | 72 | 12/1/09 | Verified Complaint for Damages and Other Relief (D.E. 74) | | | | | 73 | 2/23/11 | Privilege Log of [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman | | | | | 74 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes including, but not limited to:
  1. Scott W. Rothstein (12/12/11);
  2. Jack (John) Scarola's (7/2/13); and
  3. [REDACTED] Adler (10/28/10).
| | | | | | | | | | | ### United S 6f America v. Scott Rothstein — Forfeiture Action DC \$D. Fla. Case No. 09-CV-61780-Zloch-Rosenbaum | 75 | 11/9/09 | Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem (D.E. 1) | | --- | -------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | 76 | 11/23/09 | d Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem | | 77 | 11/2 | ended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem | ### The Florida Bar Matters | 78 | 11/9/09 | The Florida Bar Inqui/Anplaint Form Jeffrey | | --- | -------- | --------------------------------------------- | | | | Epstein filed against J. William | | 79 | 11/25/09 | Approval of Scott Rothstein's disbarment; The | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 80 | 6/24/10 | The Florida Bar's Notice of No Probable Cause and Letter of Advice to Accused; In re Complaints by Jeffrey Epstein and the Florida Bar against [REDACTED] James [REDACTED] ; Case No. 2010-50,746(09B) | | | | | United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein
USDC S.D. Fla. Case No. 09-60331 | | | | | | | 81 | 12/1/09 | Information charging Scott W. Rothstein | | | | | 82 | 1/25/10 | Plea Agreement between the United States of America and Scott W. Rothstein | | | | | 83 | 9/26/17 | Government's Motion to Withdraw its Motion for Reduction of Sentence | | | | | Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al.
17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida Case No. 09-062943 | | | | | | | 84 | Misc. | Court docket, all court filings referenced therein and all discovery and discovery responses | | | | | 85 | 11/20/09 | Complaint | | | | | 86 | 11/25/09 | Amended Complaint | | | | | 87 | Misc. | All testimony, deposition transcripts, exhibits and videotapes including, but not limited to:
a. Scott W. Rothstein's testimony (12/12/11, 12/19/11, 12/20/11, 12/21/11, 12/22/11) | | | | | Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler – Communication | | | | | | | 88 | 4/8/09
2:58 p.m. | E-mail from Russell Adler to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], cc Mark S. Nurik (01404) | | | | | 89 | 4/22/09
4:51 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] Adler (01620) | | | | | 90 | 4/24/09
5:07 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] Adler (01446) | | | | | 91 | 5/19/09
10:33 a.m. | E-mail from William J. Berger to [REDACTED] J. Edwards, [REDACTED] Adler, Steven R. Jaffe, Matthew D. Weissing and Gary M. [REDACTED] (01726) | | | | | 92 | 5/19/09
12:00 p.m. | E-mail from Susan K. Stirling to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05725) | | | | | 93 | 5/19/09
12:03 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Russel Adler (01574) | | | | | 94 | 5/22/09
12:13 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Susan Spencer Wendel (01449) | | | | | 95 | 5/22/09
12:21 p.m. | E-mail from Susan Spencer Wendell to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05148) | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 96 | 5/26/09
4:57 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Timothy Malloy (01450) | | | | | 97 | 5/26/09
5:33 p.m. | E-mail from Timothy Malloy to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05151) | | | | | 98 | 5/28/09
2:13 p.m. | E-mail from Susan Spencer Wendell to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05161) | | | | | 99 | 5/28/09
2:16 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to William J. Berger (02241-02242) | | | | | 100 | 6/3/09
5:17 p.m. | E-mail from William J Berger to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], cc [REDACTED] Adler and [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (01735) | | | | | 101 | 6/4/09
10:43 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Susan K. Stirling, cc [REDACTED] (01410) | | | | | 102 | 6/9/09
3:10 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Eric Glasser (06655) | | | | | 103 | 6/23/09
12:52 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (Palm Beach Daily News) (01632) | | | | | 104 | 6/23/09
1:03 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Paul Cassell (01634) | | | | | 105 | 6/23/09
1:13 p.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to Bradley J. Edwards (05239) | | | | | 106 | 6/23/09
1:16 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. Edwards to Michele Dargan (05203) | | | | | 107 | 6/23/09
1:29 p.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to Bradley J. [REDACTED] (05277-05278) | | | | | 108 | 6/23/09
2:31 p.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. Edwards to Michele Dargan (05207-05208) | | | | | 109 | 6/23/09
2:41 p.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05324-05325) | | | | | 110 | 6/23/09
2:53 p.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (05212-05213) | | | | | 111 | 6/23/09
3:08 p.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05344-05346) | | | | | 112 | 6/23/09
3:12 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (05215-05217) | | | | | 113 | 6/23/09
4:39 p.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05368-05369) | | | | | 114 | 6/23/09
5:22 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (05220-05221) | | | | | 115 | 6/23/09
5:28 p.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05387-05388) | | | | | 116 | 6/24/09
9:39 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (05224-05225) | | | | | No. | Date | Description Objection Marked | | --- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | 117 | 7/8/09 | E-mail from J. to Adler, | | | 3:36 p.m. | William J. Berger and Steven R. Jaffee (01462) | | 118 | 7/13/09 | E-mail from Michele Dar (Palm Beach Daily | | | 2:28 p.m. | News) to J. 08404) | | 119 | 7/4/09 | E-mail from J. to William J. | | | 4:37 p.m. | Berger (02201 , | | 120 | 7/15/09 | E-mail from J. to Michele Dargan | | | 1:17 .m. | 049 | | 121 | 7/15/09 | E-mail from Michele Dargan to J. | | | 1:22 p.m. | (04905 | | 122 | 7/18/09 | E-mail from J. to Adler | | | 4:10 p.m. | (01661) | | 123 | 7/21/09 | E-mail from J. to Michele Leone | | | 8:21 p.m. | (01352 | | 124 | 7/22/09 | E-mail from M J. to Michele | | | 11:22 a.m. | (01479) | | 125 | 7/22/09 | E-mail from Michele Dargan to Bradle | | | 11:35 a.m. | 05803 | | 126 | 7/22/09 | E-mail from Jacquie to J. wards | | | 1:29 p.m. | (01662 | | 127 | 7/22/09 | Letter fron La J. Edw noticing | | 128 | 7/26/09 | E-mail from Priscila ento to Scott | | | 5:28 p.m. | Rothstein, cc Amy l w s and Adelita Cabello | | 129 | 7/28/09 | E-mail from B to Susan Spencer | | | 8:59 a.m. | Wendel (0 • :3) | | 130 | 7/28/09 | E-mail fro V IL •I Spencer Wendel to J. | | | 8:59 a.m. | Ed (03 0 | | 131 | 7/28/09 | E- a m J. to Michele Dargan | | | 9:28 a.m. | 6 | | 132 | 7/28/09 | -m i1 from Michele Dargan to J. | | | 10:00.a.m.\_ | 8) | | 133 | | 7/29/0k, E-mail from Cara L. to J. | | | 1:13 .InT | 08420 | | 134 | 7/28/09 | E-mail from Michele Dargan to J. | | | 1:47 .m. | 11075-11076 | | 135 | 7/29/09 | E-mail from Michele Dargan to J. | | | 1:49 p.m. | (05852-0585D\_ | | 136 | 7/30/09 | E-mail from J. to Michele Dargan | | | 2:36 p.m. | (05535-05531 | | 137 | 7/30/09 | E-mail from J. to Michele Dargan | | | 2:36 p.m. | (11320-11322) | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 138 | 7/30/09
6:06 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (05538-05539) | | | | | 139 | 7/31/09
11:20 a.m. | E-mail from Michele Dargan to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (11080-11082) | | | | | 140 | 8/10/09
6:59 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michael Isikoff (06965) | | | | | 141 | 8/10/09
7:23 p.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (06967) | | | | | 142 | 8/11/09
8:43 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michael Isikoff (06968-06969) | | | | | 143 | 8/11/09
9:29 a.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (06963-06964) | | | | | 144 | 8/11/09
10:10 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michael Isikoff (06970-06971) | | | | | 145 | 8/11/09
12:34 p.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to [REDACTED] J. Edwards (06959-06960) | | | | | 146 | 8/14/09
4:40 p.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to Bradley J. Edwards (06975) | | | | | 147 | 8/15/09
2:41 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Mike Fisten, cc Ken Jenne (01685) | | | | | 148 | 8/15/09
6:00 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. Edwards to Michael Isikoff (06972-06973) | | | | | 149 | 8/17/09
10:32 a.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to Bradley J. [REDACTED] (06976-06977) | | | | | 150 | 8/17/09
10:42 a.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. Edwards to Jacquie [REDACTED] (02442) | | | | | 151 | 8/19/09
2:47 p.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. [REDACTED] to Ken Jenne (01501) | | | | | 152 | 8/24/09
7:38 p.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] (01506) | | | | | 153 | 8/25/09
11:03 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (05952-05953) | | | | | 154 | 8/26/09
9:56 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] (02269) | | | | | 155 | 8/31/09
10:58 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (02895) | | | | | 156 | 9/2/09
12:54 p.m. | E-mail from Elizabeth Villar to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] and Ken Jenne, cc Jacquie [REDACTED], Pat [REDACTED] and Mike Fisten (01376) | | | | | 157 | 9/7/09
1:39 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (07612-07613) | | | | | 158 | 9/7/09
6:42 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (02595-02596) | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 159 | 9/7/09
6:49 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]
(07614-07615) | | | | | 160 | 9/7/09
7:00 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07605-07606) | | | | | 161 | 9/7/09
8:12 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]
(07607-07608) | | | | | 162 | 9/7/09
10:55 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07609-07611) | | | | | 163 | 9/8/09
11:43 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]
(04015) | | | | | 164 | 9/8/09
11:50 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07646) | | | | | 165 | 9/8/09
11:53 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]
(07647) | | | | | 166 | 9/8/09
12:04 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. Edwards
(07676-07677) | | | | | 167 | 9/8/09
1:59 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to Bradley J. Edwards
(07674-07675) | | | | | 168 | 9/8/09
2:04 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Conchita [REDACTED]
(07678-07679) | | | | | 169 | 9/8/09
2:36 p.m. | E-mail from Conchita Sarnoff to Bradley J. [REDACTED]
(07684-07685) | | | | | 170 | 9/8/09
2:42 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. Edwards to [REDACTED]
(07682-07683) | | | | | 171 | 9/8/09
2:49 p.m. | E-mail from Conchita Sarnoff to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07695-07697) | | | | | 172 | 9/8/09
3:25 p.m. | E-mail from Conchita [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07680-07681) | | | | | 173 | 9/8/09
7:51 p.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]
(07686-07688) | | | | | 174 | 9/8/09
7:53 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07689-07691) | | | | | 175 | 9/8/09
7:53 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(07692-07694) | | | | | 176 | 9/15/09
1:08 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Elizabeth Villar,
cc Ken Jenne and Pat [REDACTED]
(01361) | | | | | 177 | 9/18/09
12:35 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] Adler
(01318) | | | | | 178 | 9/18/09
12:35 p.m. | E-mail from Jacquie [REDACTED] to Ann [REDACTED]
Villafana, cc [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
(01583) | | | | | 179 | 9/18/09
1:01 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Susan Spencer
Wendel (05619-05620) | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | --------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 180 | 9/18/09
2:37 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Beth S. Williamson (01144) | | | | | 181 | 9/18/09
2:55 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michele Dargan (01280-01288) | | | | | 182 | 9/21/09
1:37 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (03081) | | | | | 183 | 9/23/09
8:42 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (04320) | | | | | 184 | 9/24/09
6:31 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] (04321) | | | | | 185 | 9/24/09
6:53 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (04318-04319) | | | | | 186 | 9/24/09
8:45 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (10586-10589) | | | | | 187 | 9/28/09
8:09 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], cc Renee/Carlos (02913) | | | | | 188 | 9/28/09
10:06 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] (06789) | | | | | 189 | 9/28/09
10:20 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to Bradley J. [REDACTED] (06788) | | | | | 190 | 9/28/09
11:45 p.m. | E-mail from Mike Fisten to Conchita Sarnoff (19986-19987) | | | | | 191 | 9/29/09
10:06 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. Edwards to Ken Jenn and Elizabeth Villar (01754) | | | | | 192 | 10/2/09
10:41 a.m. | E-mail from Bradley J. Edwards to Nigel Rosser (06191) | | | | | 193 | 10/2/09
11:08 a.m. | E-mail from Nigel Rosser to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (06189-06190) | | | | | 194 | 10/2/09
4:28 p.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (06979-06980) | | | | | 195 | 10/2/09
4:52 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Mike Fisten (02440-02441) | | | | | 196 | 10/2/09
4:53 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Michael Isikoff, cc Jacquie [REDACTED] (06974) | | | | | 197 | 10/2/09
6:14 p.m. | E-mail from Michael Isikoff to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], cc Jacquie [REDACTED] (06955-06956) | | | | | 198 | 10/8/09
4:11 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Richard [REDACTED] (06961) | | | | | 199 | 10/13/09
2:17 p.m. | E-mail from Grant J. [REDACTED] to Scott Rothstein, [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Ken Jenne, Kip Hunter and Adler, cc Grant J. [REDACTED] (26507) | | | | | 200 | 10/13/09
2:27 p.m. | E-mail from Mike Fi | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | -------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 201 | 10/13/09
7:00 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Jacquie [REDACTED], cc Mike Fisten (01744) | | | | | 202 | 10/14/09
7:39 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] (03190) | | | | | 203 | 10/14/09
9:02 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (03189) | | | | | 204 | 10/14/09
10:42 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] Adler to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], cc Jacquie [REDACTED] (01099) | | | | | 205 | 10/14/09
12:20 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Mike Fisten, cc Jacquie [REDACTED] (01741) | | | | | 206 | 10/16/09
5:29 a.m. | E-mail from ABA Journal Weekly Newsletter to Scott Rothstein (25864-25865) | | | | | 207 | 10/19/09
10:46 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Ken Jenne (01704) | | | | | 208 | 10/20/09
1:01 p.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] Rush to [REDACTED] J. Edwards (01433) | | | | | 209 | 10/20/09
3:07 p.m. | E-mail from Ken Jenne to Scott Rothstein (26506) | | | | | 210 | 10/22/09
11:52 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Jacquie Johnson (01391) | | | | | 211 | 10/22/09
2:52 p.m. | E-mail from Jacquie [REDACTED] to Russell Adler, Cara L. [REDACTED], Mike Fisten, Michael J. Wheeler, Marc S. Nurik, William J. Berger, Bradley J. [REDACTED], Barry J. [REDACTED] and Ken Jenne, cc Robert C. Buschel (01392) | | | | | 212 | 10/22/09
4:10 p.m. | E-mail from Jacquie Johnson to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Marc S. Nurik, Michael J. Wheeler, Cara L. [REDACTED], William J. Berger, [REDACTED] Adler and Robert C. Buschel (01307) | | | | | 213 | 10/26/09
7:46 a.m. | E-mail from William J. Berger to Pat Carter and Bradley J. [REDACTED], cc [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and Jacquie Johnson (01380) | | | | | 214 | 10/29/09
2:16 p.m. | E-mail from Pat [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (01623) | | | | | 215 | 10/30/09
10:01 a.m. | E-mail from Debra [REDACTED] to Scott Rothstein (26304-26305) | | | | | 216 | 10/30/09
10:03 a.m. | E-mail from [REDACTED] Adler to Jacquie [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (01625) | | | | | Billing | | | | | | | 217 | 12/21/09 | Contract for Services between Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart & Shipley and [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | -------------------- | ----------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 218 | N/D | Spreadsheet of Brad [REDACTED] Time in [REDACTED] adv. Epstein (BJE00000104 – BJE00000156) | | | | | 219 | 7/14/10 - 1/16/13 | Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley's Invoices for Disbursements to [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] (BJE000000039 – BJE000000103) | | | | | 220 | 1/1/80 – 2/15/13 | Search Denney Scarola Barnhart and Shipley's Matter Ledger Report (BJE000000006 – BJE000000038) | | | | | Miscellaneous | | | | | | | 221 | 10/23/09 | Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler's Firm Directory | | | | | 222 | 11/9/17 | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s "Our Attorneys" website printout ( https://www.pathtojustice.com/about-us/attorneys/ ) | | | | | 223 | 12/1/09 | Criminal Complaint; United States of America v. Alfredo Rodriguez ; USDC S.D. Fla. Case No. 09-8308 | | | | | 224 | 4/23/10 | Affidavit of [REDACTED] James [REDACTED] | | | | | 225 | 9/21/10 | Affidavit of [REDACTED] James Edwards | | | | | 226 | Misc. | Subpoenas and Notices of Deposition for Alan Dershowitz, David Copperfield and Leonard Baird | | | | | 227 | 11/16/17 | Critton Luttier Coleman, LLP's website printout for Robert D. Critton Jr. ( https://www.lawclc.com/team_members/Robert-d-critton-jr/ ) | | | | | 228 | 11/16/17 | [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Burnett, P.A.'s website printout for L. Ackerman, Jr. ([REDACTED] - [REDACTED] Attorneys/id/3/read) | | | | | J. [REDACTED] | | | | | | | 229 | N/D | The National Crime Victim Bar Association presentation excerpt of article by [REDACTED] J. Edwards: Who is Responsible for Child Sexual Abuse | | | | | 230 | N/D | The Florida Bar's website member profile printout for [REDACTED] James [REDACTED] | | | | | 231 | N/D | National Association of Distinguished Counsel biographical information for [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 232 | 5/14/13 | The National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 Directory ( http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/top-40-under-40-directory/?last_name+[REDACTED]=&state=FL&x=18&y=17 ) | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | -------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 233 | 5/14/13 | The National Trial Lawyers Profile View of Brad [REDACTED]
( http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/profile-view/Brad/[REDACTED]/4409/ ) | | | | | 234 | 5/14/13 | Lawyers.com website information for [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
( http://www.lawyers.com/florida/fort-lauderdale/[REDACTED]-J-[REDACTED]-3489098-a/ ) | | | | | 235 | 10/30/04 | Kubicki Draper's website attorney information for Brad J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 236 | 10/30/05 | Kubicki Draper's website attorney information for Brad J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 237 | | The American Registry Website printouts of recognitions received by [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | | | | | 238 | 5/7/12 | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website printout
( http://www.abuseandassault.com/Abuse_Under_Investigation ) | | | | | 239 | 1/16/13 | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website printout
( http://www.abuseandassault.com/Abuse_Under_Investigation ) | | | | | 240 | 1/16/13 | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website printout
( http://www.pathtojustice.com/media-center/press-releases/ ) | | | | | 241 | 5/14/13 | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. website printout
( http://www.abuseandassault.com/Abuse_Home ) | | | | | 242 | 5/14/13 | Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website printout
( http://www.abuseandassault.com/Abuse_Under_Notable_Cases ) | | | | | 243 | 5/14/13 | Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website attorney information for Brad [REDACTED]
( www.pathtojustice.com/attorneys/brad-[REDACTED]/#.UZJOPpWTOX0 ) | | | | | 244 | 5/14/13 | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website printout
( http://www.pathtojustice.com/media-center/achieved-press-releases/#.UZJTy5WTOX0 ) | | | | | 245 | | [REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.'s website attorney information for Brad [REDACTED] with referenced articles | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | A. | Winter 2014 | Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Volume 104; Issue 1. Crime Victims' Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims' Rights Act Before Criminal Charges are Filed; | | | | | B. | 12/26/15 | Politico. Victims in Underage Sex Case Want Prosecutors to Testify | | | | | C. | 12/21/15 | Palm Beach Daily News. Jeffrey Epstein Sex Scandal: Alan Dershowitz Suffers Setback in Defamation Case | | | | | D. | 12/18/15 | Palm Beach Daily News. Epstein Victims' Attorneys Seek Partial Victory in Defamation Suit | | | | | E. | 12/21/15 | Palm Beach Post. Boca-Resident Model Nabs \$13.4 Million Following Six-Year Divorce Battle | | | | | F. | 12/17/15 | Daily Mail.Com. Florida Model Gets Whopping \$13.4 Million Payout from Real Estate Tycoon Ex-Husband After Nasty Six-Year Divorce Battle | | | | | G. | 11/25/15 | Palm Beach Daily News. Appellate Court Reverses Palm Beach Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein's Victory | | | | | H. | 11/12/15 | Daily Business Review. Attorney's Suit Against Billionaire Allowed as Long as Justices Say It's OK | | | | | I. | 7/8/15 | Palm Beach Daily News. Judge Keeps Thousands of Epstein Documents Sealed | | | | | J. | 6/25/15 | WCVB5. Jury Awards \$24 Million to Mass. Widower in Fatal Cabana Crash | | | | | K. | 6/24/15 | NBC6. Jury Awards 24 Million in Fatal Cabana Crash | | | | | L. | 6/24/15 | CBS Miami. Jury Awards Millions to Husband of Pregnant Woman Killed by Drunk Driver | | | | | M. | 6/25/15 | Sun Sentinel. Jury Awards \$24 Million to Widower in Fatal Cabana Crash | | | | | N. | 1/8/15 | Daily Business Review. The Lawyer Suing Legal Legend Alan Dershowitz Over Sex Offender | | | | | O. | 4/21/14 | The Washington Post. Eleventh Circuit Rules that Discovery Can Move Forward on My Crime Victims' Rights Act Case | | | | | P. | 4/21/14 | Palm Beach Daily News. Appeals Court Rules Against Sex Offender. Attorneys for Underage Victims Seek to Overturn "Sweetheart Plea" | | | | | Q. | 4/21/14 | Sun-Sentinel. Victims Win Right to See Negotiation that Led to 'Lenient' Plea Deal Agreement for Billionaire Sex Offender | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | R. | 4/21/14 | Palm Beach Post. Appellate Ruling Could Force Feds to Reconsider Sex Changes Against Palm Beacher Epstein | | | | | S. | 10/20/13 | Palm Beach Daily News. Newest Lawsuit Against Epstein Expected to Include Victim Testimony | | | | | T. | 9/10/12 | CBS Miami, Exclusive: Sexual Assault Victim Alleges Abuse by Former Youth Pastor | | | | | U. | 9/7/12 | Sun-Sentinel. Elevator Fall Nets Woman \$13 Million Jury Award | | | | | V. | July 2012 | Daily Business Review. Top Florida Verdicts & Settlements of 2011 | | | | | W. | 6/13/12 | Daily Business Review. Suit Accuses Goldrush Strip Club of Scheme to Bilk Professionals | | | | | X. | 4/22/11 | Palm Beach Daily Business Review. Jeffrey Epstein Amends Lawsuit; Claims Victims' Attorney Threatened to Depose His Friends | | | | | 246 | 8/10/16 | [REDACTED] Jaffe Weissing's Facebook page with referenced articles | | | | | A. | 5/22/16 | Lawnewz.com. The Shameful Way Feds Protected Convicted Pedophile Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein | | | | | B. | 5/13/16 | Fox News. Flight Logs Show Bill Clinton Flew on Sex Offender's Jet Much More than Previously Known | | | | | C. | 2/11/16 | Sun-Sentinel. Feds Deceived Us About Billionaire Sex Offender's 'Sweetheart Deal' Teen Victims Say | | | | | D. | 2/12/16 | NBC News. Lawyers: Victims Not Told of 'Sweetheart Deal' for Jeffrey Epstein | | | | | E. | 2/11/16 | NY Daily News. Jeffrey Epstein Accusers Sue Feds Over Hidden Non-Prosecution 'Conspiracy' | | | | | F. | 4/23/14 | Farmer, Jaffe. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Crime Victims' Rights in Registered Pedophile Jeffrey E. Epstein Case | | | | | G. | 4/23/14 | Daily Business Review. Prosecutors Must Turn Over Docs in Billionaire Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein Case | | | | | 247 | Misc. | Court and arrest information; [REDACTED] James [REDACTED]; Duval County Court, Case No. 16-1995-MM-000074-AXXA-[REDACTED] | | | | | 248 | Misc. | Court and arrest information; [REDACTED] James [REDACTED]; Duval County Case No. 16-1998-CF-004394-AXXX-[REDACTED] | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | -------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 249 | 8/14/07 | Exemption and/or Limitation Exclusion – Tax Assessment of \$3,507.72 | | | | | 250 | 1/7/08 | Notice of Satisfaction of Lien Relative to Tax Exemption | | | | | 251 | Misc. | Docket and all court filings referenced therein; U.S. Bank National Association v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 252 | 1/21/10 | Petition/Complaint; U.S. Bank National Association v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 253 | 2/18/10 | [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] Answer and Affirmative Defenses; U.S. Bank National Association v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 254 | 8/11/10 | Notice of Sale; U.S. Bank National Association v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 255 | 8/11/10 | Final Summary Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure; U.S. Bank National Association v. Bradley J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 256 | 10/22/10 | Certificate of Sale; U.S. Bank National Association v. [REDACTED] J. Edwards ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 257 | 11/2/10 | Certificate of Title; U.S. Bank National Association v. [REDACTED] J. Edwards ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA002613AXXXCE | | | | | 258 | Misc. | Docket and all court filings referenced therein; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA012467AXXXCE | | | | | 259 | 3/17/10 | Petition/Complaint; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bradley J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA012467AXXXCE | | | | | 260 | 10/4/11 | Final Summary Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA012467AXXXCE | | | | | 261 | 10/10/11 | Notice of Sale; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA012467AXXXCE | | | | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | -------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 262 | 1/5/12 | Certificate of Sale; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA012467AXXXCE | | | | | 263 | 1/18/12 | Certificate of Title; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2010CA012467AXXXCE | | | | | 264 | Misc. | Docket and all court filings referenced therein; Ist United Bank v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 11-030427 | | | | | 265 | 12/8/11 | Complaint; Ist United Bank v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 11-030427 | | | | | 266 | 1/25/12 | Stipulation for Settlement; Ist United Bank v. [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 11-030427 | | | | | 267 | Misc. | Docket and all court filings referenced therein; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. [REDACTED] Edwards ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 268 | 3/22/12 | Complaint; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bradley [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 269 | 5/18/12 | [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] Motion to Dismiss; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bradley Edwards ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 270 | 10/3/12 | Order Denying Motion to Dismiss; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bradley [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 271 | 10/26/12 | Answer to Complaint; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bradley [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 272 | 11/20/12 | Mediation Report; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 273 | 3/15/13 | Mediation Report; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] ; 17 th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Case No. 2012CC003827AXXXWE | | | | | 274 | | Corporate Detail Printout from Sunbiz.org for The Law Office of Brad [REDACTED] & Associates, LLC | | | | | No. | Date | Description Objection Marked | | --- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------ | | 275 | 4/16/07 | Articles of Organization for Florida Limited | | | | "al Company for The Law Office of Brad | | 276 | 1/25/08 | 2008 Limited Liability Cmati Annual Report for | | | | The Law Office of Brad and Associates | | 277 | 3/11/09 | 2009 Limited Liability Coil Annual Report for | | | | The Law Office of Brad and Associates | | 278 | | Florida Bar Rules including, but not limited to, | | 279 | 3/3/08 | Complaint; Donald D. Baker v. The City of | | 280 | 6/17/08 | Omnibus Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; | | 281 | 8/10/10 | U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion; Donald D a r | | 282 | 12/9/04 | New Times l3roward Palm-Reac • o I e Tape | ## e | 283 | 10/20/17 | Dr. Bernard J. Jansen's Expert Report with attachments | | | | | --- | -------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | | 284 | Misc. | All documents produced, or relied upon or referenced by Dr. Bernard J. Jansen in preparing his 10/20/17 Report | | | | | 285 | 9/9/16 | Expert Witness Report of Dr. Bernard J. Jansen in Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell (USDC NY) | | | | | 286 | 11/30/16 | Supplemental Expert Witness Report of Dr. Bernard J. Jansen in [REDACTED] v. Ghislaine Maxwell (USDC NY) | | | | | 287 | Misc. | All public records, news articles and prior testimony of Dr. Bernard J. Jansen | | | | | | | | | | | ### Other Articles | 288 | 11/1/09 | Kendall Coffey: Law Firm Victimized by Scott | | --- | ------- | -------------------------------------------- | | 289 | 11/2/09 | Legal Junkies. WSJ Law Blog — Rothstein | | 290 | 11/2/09 | New Times Broward-Palm Beach. ChiefJudge: | | No. | Date | Description | Objection | Marked in Evidence | Marked for Id. | | --- | -------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ | -------------- | | 291 | 11/3/09 | The New York Times: Fraud Accusations Against Florida Lawyer Set Off a Race to Return His Donations | | | | | 292 | 11/3/09 | Rothstein Returns After Contemplating Suicide, Partner Says | | | | | 293 | 11/3/09 | Florida Law Firm Asks to be Dissolved | | | | | 294 | 11/3/09 | Sun Sentinel. Scott Rothstein's Investment Deals Seemed Too Good to be True | | | | | 295 | 11/5/09 | Funds News. FBI Agents Search Law Firm in Missing Funds Probe | | | | | 296 | 11/6/09 | New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Scott Rothstein: The Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton Ploy | | | | | 297 | 11/6/09 | Rothstein Accomplice Still on Lam | | | | | 298 | 11/7/09 | Tour of Scott Rothstein's Office Reveals Gallery of Who's Who | | | | | 299 | 11/12/09 | Sun Sentinel: FBI Doubts Rothstein Ran a Ponzi Scheme Alone | | | | | 300 | 11/13/09 | Palm Beach Post: FBI Doubts Rothstein's Scheme a 'One-Man Show' | | | | | 301 | 11/13/09 | Sun Sentinel. High-Ranking Police Officers Guarded Over Rothstein | | | | | 302 | 11/17/09 | Inside the Rothstein Swindle, Part I | | | | | 303 | 11/17/09 | Sun Sentinel. Rothstein Asks to Voluntarily Give Up Law License | | | | | 304 | 11/17/09 | Rothstein and Dreier: How Much Alike? | | | | | 305 | 11/18/09 | Inside the Rothstein Swindle, Part II | | | | | 306 | 11/18/09 | Former RAA Attorneys Take New Jobs | | | | | 307 | 11/20/09 | Scherer Files Suit Against Rothstein, et al. | | | | | 308 | 11/20/09 | Article by Paul Brinkman | | | | | 309 | 11/21/09 | Rothstein Feeder [REDACTED] Levin's Ugly Past | | | | | 310 | 11/22/09 | George Levin was Rothstein's Whale | | | | | 311 | 11/23/09 | Rothstein Associate Levy Got Protection from Plantation Cops | | | | | 312 | 11/23/09 | Main Line Firm's Clients Invested \$30 Million with 'Ponzi' Lawyer | | | | | 313 | 11/23/09 | Sun-Sentinel. Scott Rothstein: "You're in Town Full of Thieves | | | | | 314 | 11/24/09 | Miami Herald. Feds: Scott Rothstein Ponzi Scheme Paid Salaries at Law Firm | | | | | 315 | 11/26/09 | The Rothstein Wires | | | | | 316 | 1/13/10 | Sun Sentinel. Florida Bar Looking at 35 Former Attorneys from Rothstein's Firm | | | | | No. | Date | Description Objection Marked | | --- | ------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | | 317 | July 2010 | Sun Sentinel. 22 Former Scott Rothstein Attorneys | | 318 | 10/22/10 | South Florida Business Journal. A Year After | | 319 | 10/31/10 | The Florida Bar. Scott Rothstein Scandal: One Year | | 320 | 1/21/13 | Forbes. Rothstein Expose Details Sex, Murder, and | | 321 | 10/13/14 | Five Years on, Rothstein's Ponzi Still Resonates \ LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 727-3600; (561) 727-3601 [fax] Gs' nkrocklaw.com Scott J. Link (FBN 60299 Kara Berard Rockenbac 44903) Angela M. Many (Frt2 Primary: Scott@lin ocklAiw.com Primary: Ka inkrocklaw.com Primary: Second Seco Eservice(alinkrocklaw.com By. Is/ Scott J. Link (S; 'i Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant ffrey Epstein **SERVICE LIST** |

Jack Scarola
Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
mep@searcylaw.com
jsx@searcylaw.com
scarolateam@searcylaw.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]

|

Nichole J. Segal
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
Courthouse Commons, Suite 350
444 West Railroad Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
njs@FLAppellateLaw.com
kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]

| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
Pottinger LLC
425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268
brad@epllc.com
staff.efile@pathtojustice.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] |

Marc S. Nurik
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
marc@nuriklaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein

| |

Tonja Haddad Coleman
315 S.E. Seventh Street, Suite 301
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
tonja@tonjahaddad.com
efiling@tonjahaddad.com
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein

|

Fred Haddad
Haddad & Navarro, PLLC
1 Financial Plaza, Suite 2612
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
dee@haddadandnavarrolaw.com
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein

| |

Jack A. Goldberger
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
jgoldberger@agwpa.com
smahoney@agwpa.com
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein

| | IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; , individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. # AS TRANSCRIPT O ?c/2d1:4e r DATE TAKEN: day, March 8th, 2018 TIME: p.m. - 4:50 p.m. PLACE 5 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10D est Palm Beach, Florida BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge (..Se lS'ivillIr Ai'...) k This cause came on to be heard at the time and ace aforesaid, when and where the following oceedings were reported by: Cos Elaine V. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 471-2995 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: 3 4 LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A. 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE 6 7 8 9 For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE JR., ESQUIRE By KAREN TERRY, ESQUIRE cos 10 11 For Non-Parties L.M., E.W. ta e 12 13 HATCH, JAMES & DODGE 10 West Broadway, 4 0 Salt Lake City, 1 By PAUL G. CASS QUIRE 14 15 For Jeffrey E t\* 16 17 ATTERB Y, DBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Aus a ian Ave. South, Suite 1400 We Palm Beach, FL 33401 By fOrA. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ### PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: Thank you. Welcome back everybody. Have a seat. MR. SCAROLA: May I move to this podium now? THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. Your Honor, have we decided what going to hear? we're THE COURT: Yes. My and was going to be Motion in Limine Addre Evidence, and of nding as I left upplement to cope of Admissible that same vein Epstein's Notice of Servi of nredacted Appendix in Support -- e nse in Opposition to Second S plem ntal Motion in Limine addressing Scop of A issible Evidence. . SCAROLA: Your Honor, there are actually a ul~nple submissions to the Court to deal with losely-related issues, and those issues arise out of the fact that over the course of the last three weeks 724 new exhibits have been added to the exhibit list of the defendant Epstein. And just to provide some general background, some of which your Honor may recall, there was an 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 exhibit list filed by Mr. Epstein on November 16, 2017. That same exhibit list was attached to the pretrial stipulation on December 22, 2017. And then for the first time on March 5th of 2018 the new exhibit list was filed. If you compare the .44.2k exhibit lists of November 16th and December nd, which, as I said, are the same, with the t ch 5L, exhibit list, 25 new exhibits -- - 724 new exhibits were added. excu 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Your Honor held a hearin this matter on December 5th and made it exhibits that were not December -- and I all parties that sed by the end of may have been the December 22 dat --ahn not sure about that exact Ze (C ) date -- but x i ' s that were not specifically disclose wo not be permitted to be used at tria You made it clear that catchall listings w ld unacceptable; that specific individual x Au, C5 'bits needed to be listed. I'm sure your Honor as a recollection of those circumstances. And that, obviously, is a fairly standard order that your Honor adheres to in connection with trial practice. 24 25 THE COURT: What I just wanted to point out is in conjunction with what we're going to be eventually talking about, we're now dealing with the Motion to Strike Epstein's Untimely Supplemental Exhibits and to Strike All Exhibits and Any Reference to Documents Containing Privileged Materials Listed on ' Privilege Log. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: That led into what I bed earlier of the motions that will on the table. MR. SCAROLA: That's cor And that's why I acknowledged, your Hono we're really dealing with a number ely-related motions. So the first a procedural issue; and that is, whethe ou Honor is going to allow the listing and sg 724 new suggesti e Court is that that is a threshold exhibits. And my issu that really helps to resolve much of what f lou because if, as a matter of procedure, those 72 ew exhibits are not going to be used, then uch of the rest of the argument becomes irrelevant. There are, however, very significant substantive issues if the procedural determination does not dispose of the use of those exhibits. THE COURT: These exhibits specifically were added when? 1 2 MR. SCAROLA: They were added by a new list filed on March 5th of 2018. 3 4 6 7 THE COURT: Okay. Just to put this into perspective, March 5th would have been Monday of this week, today being March 8th, and the trial starting on March 13th, presuming it begins a scheduled. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. But I take it clear that while the 724 were neve li ted on a prior exhibit list before Mar some of those documents were disclosed er the past three weeks. So I am not su g to your Honor that the first notice w an intent to attempt to use these docu4 is s March 5. The first notice we got of a 17 1 document disclosures to attempt to use some of these ed some three weeks ago as new were sent to us. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AAd again, this is from memory, but I think O hie may have been three separate groups of w71?°6 ocuments that were sent to us not covering all of the 724. And obviously, your Honor knows from the materials that you have reviewed much attention was focused on documents that we contend and have contended for eight years are privileged documents. Documents listed on a very specific privilege log. 1 2 3 And those are 45 of the 724 newly-listed documents. And those documents were brought to our attention just last week. 4 6 7 8 9 So my suggestion to your Honor is that we deal first with the procedural issue because, as I said, that will narrow issues significantly. there will still remain some substantiv ue with regard specifically to any attem e of privileged materials. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Now, your Honor heard fr th opposing counsel that I have accus of having stolen the documents. I assu Honor that that's not the case. I have sed them of having stolen the documents. at have said in repeated communicati s hat these are stolen documents. And thes do u ents, if your Honor has had an oppo unity to look at the timeline, were very at this point handed over by the bankruptcy for one purpose and one urpose only; and that was to print them out, • stamp them so that they could be turned over for privilege review by the Jaffe law firm, including specifically Brad 24 25 THE COURT: Let me stop you there so we can put this in context. Joe Ackerman, as I recollect, was representing Mr. Epstein for some period of time, and he was at that juncture associated with the firm in some capacity. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. That's correct. THE COURT: So if I'm understanding th's correctly then, the bankruptcy court to C. th documents over to 0 MR. SCAROLA: Did your Honor ant me to get into that now? I'm happy to at. THE COURT: So that tand. I know during a very tumultuo od of time these would be the Rothstein f' ployee. MR. SCAROA% Yea, sir. Let me go through sme this and gi o a quick overview, although all the deta provided in the timeline that I prov ed to your Honor. V t happened was that almost immediately CSol'lowing the implosion of the Rothstein, osenfeldt, Adler firm a trustee was appointed by the bankruptcy court to take control of the firm, and that trustee took control of all of the firm's files and all of the firm's electronic data, including all of its e-mail servers. So it is the trustee that had possession of all of these 'elek e-mails. Mr. Epstein through counsel, and at this point it was the firm, issued a subpoena in our civil litigation, then pending in front of Judge, for the trustee to produce all of the e-mails. Judge Ray, to whom that subpoena referred, Judge Ray appointed Judge Car special to make a determinatio i tb what could appropriately be turned over bec use obviously these were e-mails related to a wide variety of cases. It was ire contents of the e-mail server of R Rosenfeldt, Adler, and it was recogni those e-mails could contain attorne li t and work product privileged materials. ge Carney was appointed a special a determination as to what should and tld be turned over and report back to Judge 0 Judge Carney gets 27,000 e-mails and Judge arney says, "I don't have an appreciation as to what may be privileged here. We need to come up with a procedure so that I can be advised of what privilege assertions are being raised." So Judge Carney says, "I want what was then the newly-formed law firm that Mr. is working in, I want 1 Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos and Lehrman" 2 THE COURT: Jaffe, right? 3 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Jaffe. 4 THE COURT: We can just refer to them as Jaffe. 6 7 8 9 10 MR. SCAROLA: All right. "I want Farm r Jaffe to go through these e-mails and prepare iv ege log. Let me know what's privileged h d then I'll make a determination as to wh going to get turned over." 11 12 13 14 15 16 documents t enters a The response from Mr c through me is this is 27,000 e-mails ant them, they should be responsible for g them and stamping them and delive gStose printed and stamped AllZ7e r our review. And Judge Ray 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nd Judge Ray says in his order -- and it's n relevant part at the bottom of the first of this timeline -- Judge Ray says the law irm of will print a hard copy of all the documents contained on the disks with numbers added and will provide a set of copied, stamped documents to the special and an identical set to, who will use the same to create its privilege log. And Judge Ray, federal bankruptcy Judge Ray, says, ' will not retain any copies of the documents contained on the disk provided to it nor shall any images or copies of said documents be retained in the memory of copiers. c Should it be determined that o Epstein retained images or copies of th je t documents on its computer or otherwis Court retains jurisdiction to award sanc ion in favor of, Brad or his c So it was obvious th was to happen at that point was they we ke over the ministerial task a • rs of the court of bearing the exp turn these documents over to Jaff a rad for purposes of preparin a p ilege log. CO RT: For lack of a better metaphor, wasn't that a fox in a henhouse type of tion? MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, were these not officers of the court, the answer to that question is yes. These were adversaries who were being given control over these documents, but they were adversaries who had a sworn duty to follow the Court's direction. And we had every reason to 1 2 3 believe that this respected law firm and these respected lawyers would do exactly what they were told to do. 4 6 7 Now, we know that the disk that contained that information, as has been conceded by Epstein's counsel, was formatted on December 10 -- expuSe me -- December 8th of 2010. 8 9 THE COURT: What do you mean by ) formatted? AS. k was 10 11 12 C. c, MR. SCAROLA: What I mea the documents on that disk were divided in different categories. 13 THE COURT: AS was December 10? 14 MR. SCARO D ember 8th of 2010. 15 THE CO '1< • Zr hank you. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. after being ordered not to retain any copies adisk that is formatted by is the disk that is now in the possession of effrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein's counsel. And it contains without a doubt those documents that we identify on a privilege log that is generated as a consequence of that process. It contains those privileged and attorney work product e-mails. And that assertion of privilege has never been So within approximately one week overruled. THE COURT: Did the Special Magistrate Carney or Judge Ray ever hold a hearing to determine the nature of the privilege? Was that ever called up for a hearing? MR. SCAROLA: What happened, your Hono, is that Judge, when he learned of the circumstances of what was going on in ba ptcy court, communicated to Judge Carne his subpoena was issued in my case. work you are doing, it is RY AV While sect you and the relevant and material se and it is my job to determine issue vilege in my case." That short circuited e rk that was going on in the bankruptcy u t and Judge Carney never issued any rulings regard. to decide what is his +Court t hen became a matter over which Judge exercising jurisdiction to determine how ubpoena issued in the Circuit Court State case, how that subpoena was going to be responded to. So our privilege log goes to Judge > And there's some back and forth about whether the privilege log is or is not adequate, and there is a direction with regard to certain requests for 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 documents on the privilege log. Specifically, there is a Request Number 13, which asks for communications between Jaffe and the federal government and communications between Jaffe and any members of the press. And those are ordered turned over. And those are turned2vtr in full compliance with the Court's order.1 issues of privilege that were raised gard to both attorney-client and work prod ct rivilege never gets ruled on by Judge because before they are ruled on, a volu smissal is taken of the claims against ards. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 So we have a i 'e log in place. It specifically li t se documents. Some of these c5 ) documents w e 1 ed as attorneys' eyes only. And that res is n has never been lifted. And some of t se documents are listed on the separate e log, and those restrictions have never lifted. 20 21 22 23 Now, in some of the communications that have gone on back and forth you may have seen reference to a disclosure to the Razorback defendants. Excuse me. The Razorback plaintiffs. 24 25 THE COURT: That was the litigation led by Mr. Scherer. rivilege, will turn over anything that you consider ate for us to turn over. But we have no 'ty to waive our client's attorney-client your Honor, and some of these e-mails clearly contain information that originated with clients. And we are in the midst at this point of still-pending litigation, and it is important for us to protect our work product privilege as well. Some of that litigation is still ongoing right now. MR. SCAROLA: That is correct. The Conrad Scherer firm was involved in that litigation, and the Conrad Scherer firm was also interested in getting to take a look at whatever relevant e-mails might have been in the hands of the bankruptcy trustee, and then got turned over to us. Well, there were direct negotiatio w ich I was a personal participant with the s for Conrad Scherer, and an agreement s r ached with the lawyers for Conrad Schere ause, as we have told every judge before w ave appeared with regard to these matter not attempting to hide anything. Yo St o conduct an in-camera inspection, we t u to conduct an in-camera inspection c u it will confirm that we're not attempti to ide anything. That's the Crime Victims Rights Act case. So there is a very legitimate reason for us to be concerned about protecting both the work product privilege and the attorney/client privilege, particularly protecting it from Mr. Epstein, and particularly protecting it from Mr. Epstein n w that we know there was a clear violatio ► **th federal judge's order with regard to ter in which these materials were to be h ndl d.** **Interestingly -- and I d know whether there's any relationship - but shortly after this disk is imp retained by, that e inds up withdrawing from the case. So t 'r gone. And apparently the disk sits tt r years until a request is made to turn of files.** **nd what we have been told is ki!pv tia y, for whatever reason, resists that rie est, but Mr. Link and associates go down to Nhjiami, they review files, they get their hands on this disk. There is a significant delay between their appearance in the case and when they finally go to look at the files. Then there's a two-week delay between looking at the files and receiving the disk. And then** 1 2 there's a two-week delay between receiving the disk and starting to 3 THE COURT: Excuse me just a minute. 4 Bailiff, see what may be transpiring outside, please. Pardon me. Off the record. 6 (Discussion held off the record.) 7 THE COURT: Go ahead. I apologize. 464r 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, in the 1 scheme of things, I don't think th t those delays make very much difference at the lawyers who, as your Ns noted, announced to the Court that they oing to be ready for trial 90 days late d ere it is just weeks before this cas s out to begin that they are 7e first revie n 1 boxes, or over 30 boxes of files. gh ave been 31. I think 36 is the numb B boxes of files that never even got r i by them. But these are 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So those are matters of significant concern to s. But the matter of greatest concern is that once it becomes apparent that these are documents that are listed on our privilege log, a privilege that has never been challenged, a privilege that remains in place, and we notify opposing counsel here is our privilege log, here are the numbers, the numbers of these documents on that privilege log, you have an obligation, an ethical obligation, to turn them over to us, to turn them over now, and to make no use of those documents unless and until you have a court order that says otherwise. You need to tell us where did y u get them, when did you get them, how did yo t em, to whom have you distributed them? Aid e are questions that we still don't have ans ered. What we get from the oth, de is, "Well, they could have come from ey could have maybe come from there, maybe me from someplace else, we don't kno ." A if they don't know where S o they came from t t source is clearly a proper 1 7., t v the burden in overcoming this ion to prove a waiver if they cont d any waiver existed. source, the privileg wasn't with regard to Conrad Scherer se when those documents were turned over to onrad Scherer -- and we have the letters that confirm the written agreement with every detail of that agreement in place -- those were turned over as part of a common interest privilege with an express representation it was attorneys' eyes only, with an express representation they would be turned over to no one. Indeed, when they got turned over to Conrad Scherer, they were originally turned over with a confidentiality watermark on every document. And then they contacted us back again and said, "We're trying to OCR all of these documents so that they are searchable, and we can't d hat with the watermark on them. Can you pl pr vide us with another copy without a waterm ' And we did that; again, trusting these offers of the And we have ad Scherer did. court to abide by their agree every reason to believe At \\ t They were not the sour ib The obvious s 8s, , ased have been able Whit after th now upon what we e together, is very clearly roper retention of this material een expressly ordered by the federal court not to retain any of it. , every representation I have made to the Copo t, everything that is included on this timeline an be established through documents that pinpoint the dates and the identity of involved and the character of was made and every disclosure the individuals every disclosure that that was withheld. It has taken a substantial effort to put all of this together again. We have been working on this many, many, many hours. But the subject of appropriate sanctions is a subject for another day except to this extent: We need to know who has access, who has had access to this confidential material. We need to know if there's some intent to call a witness who may have been given apcSss to this confidential material. We need to the lawyers involved. of And Mr. Cassell is going to a dre s from the perspective of the clients th cern that they have about being informed Q ow their confidences have been d. So with your A Y Honor's permission I SS o d like him to have an opportunity to re the Court briefly on that topic. THE What I'd like to do, though, is allo defense counsel to be able to speak to the d Binger analysis dealing with the late Clii closure, because if Mr. Scarola is right and at is that these exhibits were listed for the first time in March, which would have been three days ago, and discussed perhaps within the last few weeks, then we would have essentially a Binger issue to analyze. So Miss Rockenbach, go ahead and proceed in that respect, please. 4. ?bk (:)-mail 04408; MS. ROCKENBACH: This is the stamp an e-mail from to Paul Cassell, October 17, 2009. 'le MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, your Honor. I am certain that this courtroom is a place where we are searching for truth and not hiding evidence, whether it is evidence that causes conclusion by this Court that there is no case to be tried. And for the first time after four days of n e use that word -- MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm so f this is one of the privileged e-mails, assume it probably is, your Honor has e d an order sealing these documents, press is present. It is being displayed Qm tly in violation of ethical obligation \\ r inquish possession of 44c, these documents Ag e t THE CO • r1 1 right. In lieu of publication in open ur by don't you just hand me the document making sure that counsel also has the is referenced with the correct stamp. THE COURT: Okay. Is this an extra copy? MR. SCAROLA: Do we have an extra copy, please? There are literally thousands of e-mails we're dealing with. 1 2 MR. LINK: It's in the appendix that we've provided you. 3 4 THE COURT: I'm familiar with it from reading the materials myself and I could probably put my hands on it. 6 7 MR. LINK: It's in the appendix, your or. Appendix 1. 8 MR. VITALE: 9 E. TERRY: 04408. 10 MS. ROCKENBACH: That's ' Thank you. 11 12 THE COURT: And I hay oo. I can get my hands on it pretty eas hink. 13 14 MR. CASSELL: nor, if I could just be heard just brie 15 16 THE CO o ahead and introduce yourself to our new ur eporter. 17 18 CA SELL: Paul Cassell on behalf of three LM, EW and Jane Doe. 19 20 21 We'd like the record to be clear that we're oining public disclosure or reference to these documents. in the objection to any 22 23 THE COURT: Well, reference and public disclosure are two different things, Mr. Cassell. 24 25 MR. CASSELL: I'm sorry. Any disclosure of the contents or the substance of these documents. 1 2 THE COURT: Outside of the Court's review? Are you objecting to my review? 3 4 MR. CASSELL: No. We're not waiving any privileges, but we don't want there to be any public reference to the contents. 6 7 8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you for h t clarification. So let me go ahead and Nyland put my hands on -- 9 10 11 O MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, cap give you AV the copy that Terry noted was 8. I don't need it. 12 THE COURT: Okay fine. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SrS? MS. ROCKENBAC . h purpose of me putting this particular ec of evidence, which I've been asked on mu ' 1 occasions by Mr. Scarola to destroy arrage of e-mails over the past four ays, m handing it to the Court as evidence o Ac h. no 'nger surprise. It can't be Binger surprise rt . if he is authoring an e-mail with egard to this very action that's pending before this Court about five to six weeks before Mr. Epstein sued him. So that can't be a surprise to Mr. It actually makes this case incredibly stronger for the issue of probable cause. But more importantly, your Honor, it's about the truth. It's about the truth and the fact that over the past four days my professional integrity, my character has been impugned to the extent that very simply we told -- actually, I didn't respond to any single e-mail. For the record, Mr. responded to e-mails. I didn't want to on what I saw was escalating e-mails tha ed off with a demand that we destroy evid nce which I know as an officer of the cou cannot do, and a demand to disclose who, e. And we immediately did. Fowl Then I had my al issue an affidavit that establishe ha of custody. I obtained the Fed Ex rece' t r the three boxes that contained this inc disk. And that's on file with the cour o destroy evidence. I was called unethical more ct Sad t the e-mails did escalate, and we were -- no, demanded -- demanded on multiple times than four times, sanctions were mentioned, the words improper, unethical, six times, hid, disturbing, misdeeds. And then last, but not least, Mr. Scarola did in fact -- and this is not privileged -- did in fact send an e-mail indicating 1 2 3 4 6 that he didn't want a special, declined our request for one because it does not take a special to determine that stolen privileged documents -- this is for the first week, or the first time the week before trial -- are inadmissible. I disagree. 7 8 9 10 No court has looked at these e-mai An your Honor just asked that question, as really important, did Judge 1 ok t these in-camera and determine the p ege issue? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 So I am very pleased gree with Mr. Scarola for the f ( ig e I heard just now a request or an agre ot even a request, an agreement that se hould be looked at in-camera. They absolu 1 ould be looked at in-camera because a iscerate Mr. Epstein's malicious pros ution case from proceeding. 18 19 eft COURT: Mr. 20 21 22 23 24 O But so disturbed was I by the barrage of e-mails, I reached out to the former ethics director of the Florida bar, a trusted colleague, Tim Chinaris. I have the affidavit. I don't know if your Honor has. 25 THE COURT: I don't remember seeing it. MS. ROCKENBACH: It was very significant because I was being asked to destroy evidence, I was being called unethical for the first time in 23 years, and then I saw the word stolen, and honestly my heart was broken. So Mr. Chinaris has an affidavit that I've filed with the Court. e knows the information AS THE COURT: Is that in this? MR. LINK: Your Honor, it's it thg package we delivered right before lunch. I c THE COURT: Okay. tr at it. ACO lad to take a look ASS" MS. ROCKENBAC . e as the ethics director for the Florida r r almost a decade, authoring Ac ime thousands o o i 'ons on legal ethics for lawyers facing ith regard to the rules of regulgting the Florida Bar. of the rules that I was thinking about in of this hearing was 4-3.3 because both sides, (including Mr. , who happens to be party but should be held to a higher standard than just a simple party, has a duty to disclose candor toward the tribunal. That Florida 4-3.3 rule is very significant in this case because no one can advance false statements or positions to this Court. lith, 1 2 3 These e-mails, your Honor, go to the very heart of this malicious prosecution case and whether it can proceed. 4 6 7 8 9 But returning to Mr. Chinaris, he had three opinions after reviewing the relevant documents, Auk speaking to both Mr. Link and myself, based o the escalating accusations over the course o ur days. And his three opinions are ref in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31. 10 11 12 13 14 Mr. Link and Miss Rocken• have acted in an ethically proper manner. s one. Number two, the documents in ^ were not inadvertently prov wrongfully obtained by Mr. Link and Mi Ro enbach -- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SC . Excuse me. is going Your Honor, if this h into an evidentiary hearing with rega to t7ie ethical propriety of opposing s conduct, I object to this affidavit as Oc Day and I want to be able to cross-examine any thic s expert who is of the opinion that retaining privileged documents known to be privileged listed on a privilege log when there is no knowledge as to the source of those documents and a court order exists saying you're not allowed to have them, I want to cross-examine that expert. THE COURT: Well, the objection is sustained in the sense that I really do want to, as I indicated earlier, continue to as best as we can conduct the proceedings in a way that befits the known integrity of not only the attorneys here before us but also the history that has bee pervasive in the 15th Judicial Circuit. I on't want this to dissolve into an ethical sion as to whether or not someone committe so e type of ethical violation. That's re not my focus today. And that focus is A perhaps at a different d even perhaps in a different forum. suited for others (:%E"V Really wha as o be attempted to be divined today is so of representation by counsel for Mr. Epstein ash to what the source of these docu nts were. ROCKENBACH: Yes, your Honor. C THE COURT: Why were they preserved, how were t4jhey preserved, for what reason were they preserved, did that preservation violate or come close to violating an order of the bankruptcy court, has the privilege been waived? And then we get back again to the Binger analysis. I did a quick word search, and the Fifth testimony." So that's where we are als going to be focusing today. District provides us with some recent direction and assistance and talks about the issue of surprise. And it says, quote, "The opposing party also earlier attempted to exclude the surprise testimony by an unsuccessful motion in limine. Furthermore, is in the context of Binger refers t he A ' surprise in fact of the objecting partyS is not dependent upon the adverse nature of But I don't want to ' a discussion as esponsibilities lates to the origin of ?4 0. how, if counsel' ; a re, these documents inclusive of the e the 724 y new exhibits being added formally to present counsel's SS unless we have to ' d particularly as it relates to for tjL first time on March 5th, just three days certainly outside of the Court's pretrial rapr in terms of timeliness, whether they onstitute prejudice. So let's try to focus there, if we could. a lil li. > And I understand, just so the record is clear, doing this for a long time both as a trial lawyer and as a judge, I understand how feelings can be hurt, I understand how people can take umbrage at certain things that are said. The beauty of being an experienced trial judge, if nothing else, is developing a thick skin. Sometimes I'll hear people say something and use my name and they don't even know I'm standing there. MR. LINK: That wasn't me, was it, Jud e THE COURT: No. And I understand th re are going to be instances where peopl oing to think that I'm the best in the wor d a d the absolute worst in the univers ve come to that rationale pretty quickly. k some time, but (;" it it was fairly quickly.A do understand. I illS don't want anyone i that I'm not pe compassionate t he xtent that I recognize that there have usations hurled here which may be minim l nsidered offensive and accusatory. But is move beyond that for now and let's get to some o the issues that I discussed earlier that we anytocus on relating to decisions that I'll have ao make concerning the potential admissibility of this evidence. MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, your Honor. I appreciate that. And we have established the chain of custody through the affidavit of Tina from our office. So it is clear we did not improperly obtain them, nor were they inadvertently disclosed to us. THE COURT: Tina is your paralegal? MS. ROCKENBACH: Who obtained the three boxes, the three boxes from, which copctined that CD which is at issue. THE COURT: I think the disconne having here today is not so much tke fact that Miss received the bo somebody got notice that the boxes wer > A MS. ROCKENBACH: n issue. THE COURT: at somebody did what they did. And there y e been an issue with regard to W t luntarily turning them over. Those ar s that can be dealt with later on. And ain, it may be a different forum than I'm ling with here today. Xrly But what I'd like to know is how 0 ot the documentation, do we to know that, whether or not that documentation was obtained or retained in a manner that either was in violation of Judge Ray's order or walked a certain tightrope that could be construed as a constructive violation of that order. And if we know that, then it would go tik 1 2 a long way in me trying to make a determination as it relates to Binger and its progeny. 3 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you. 4 THE COURT: So that's really where we need to focus. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I have no problem and I don't think Mr. Scarola has any problem in terms of fa t that you all did your homework; albei% his position, late in the game, and se u re¢ this information from 1111110 question, though, is why ' er have these documents, why w continued to be held, and was it i t ion either expressly or constructively it elates to Judge Ray's order? e critical 15 16 17 MS. RO H: Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Link died this issue and will address that. 18 19 LINK: So, Judge, let me see if I can lldriify a couple of things. 20 21 22 23 24 25 First, these exhibits that we're talking about from the disk, they absolutely were just listed on our exhibit list. They were just located by us in the last week. However, on our exhibit list it's always been a general category, as Mr. Scarola said. The reason there are 749 specific exhibits 1 is the clerk required it. So -- 2 THE COURT: The clerk required it? 3 MR. LINK: Specific. You have got to do 4 THE COURT: The clerk, you're saying? Or the Court? 6 MR. LINK: The Court. 7 8 THE COURT: II, okay. I thought yo re saying -- 9 10 O MR. LINK: It's called the cl rk' exhibit list for the Court, but the C did it. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So in co n with an order that I had made earlie e proceeding that I was not going to a grieral catchall types of exhibit identif I required that each and every exhib' e pecifically listed. And we've gone thr gh riad exhibits in our quest to dete ine whether or not, for example, the Fifth dm t privilege is going to be recognized and r issues having to do with admissibility. And at was generally followed, to my recollection, because I dealt with many specifically identifiable exhibits. So yes, I agree that that was something that the Court had a specific interest in and has always taken the position that all cards are going to be on the table in a timely fashion so that, number one, first and foremost once all the cards are on the table, the law favors settlement, and it may come to fruition, and has more often than not resulted in an amicable resolution to a case. And as importantly, both sides are adequately prepared so that, as I mentioned in this Pollard cas no one is unduly surprised by something th me before them at or near the beginning i 1. that. MR. LINK: Yes, sir. So that The second thing I Court is that Mr. Edwa filed exhibits aft )Point out to the the same thing and rder, just like we did. And I'm not com in g -- THE CO • ell, if you're not complaining about it LINK: The reason I want to explain is in our pretrial stip I'm of the mindset we reach agreement, we have an agreement. Arc n our agreement, your court order says no additional exhibits unless the parties agree. In the pretrial stip Mr. Scarola and I agreed we reserved our right to add additional exhibits. So in compliance with the pretrial stip and this Courts' order requiring us to identify them, we've 1 been doing that, sir. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 4 MR. LINK: So we are not in violation of the Court's order. Mr. Scarola and I again agreed to do this. 6 7 8 So let's talk about becau e it A is as clear as mud. It is not as clear as Sc rola says. Here is why. If you look at h 9 10 THE COURT: That metaphor, I sure I understand clear as mud. 11 12 13 14 MR. LINK: It's not ASS It's not clear, frankl . t is not as simple %1/2 " and clear as Mr. S a ays. And I want to show you why. cThat's the point. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I hone 1 nnot tell you, I can't, where ti. cam hat end up in file. I can. . Vie have looked for every piece of ation, correspondence, we've gone through boxes three times trying to answer that uestion. We have reached out to lawyers for They have no memory of it. So we, like Mr. Scarola -- 23 24 THE COURT: Excuse me. Is Mr. Ackerman still actively practicing? 25 MR. LINK: He is, yes. And we reached out to 1 2 Joe Ackerman. Mr. Ackerman. Sorry. We reached out to Mr. Ackerman. 3 4 Here is why it's confusing. And I think this is really important to understand what happened. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 When the trustee took over the files, there was an understanding by Mr. and his rm that there would be about 5,000 e-mails t ey agreed to do a -- go through them and privilege log. What's missing fro Mr Scarola's timeline is that in November informed the bankruptcy court stee had produced 74,000, 74,000 pages o ents on two compact disks. Not one. that 14 15 16 17 18 So then wh Mr. we need ened, because of the volume, firm goes in and says, "Judge, We did not know we were going to g 74,600 pieces of paper and we need time to through them." 19 20 THE COURT: I may have lost you. The 74,000 k,...)ages were self-generated from the Rothstein firm? 21 22 MR. LINK: Yes. And delivered by the trustee to Mr. 23 24 25 THE COURT: And Mr. , you're suggesting, indicated that they need more time to review the e-mails or whatever documents -- | 2 | THE COURT: -- they may have encompassed, and | | --- | -------------------------------------------- | | 3 | to raise objections, and that forum was the | | 4 | bankruptcy court. | 4 bankruptcy court.\ 5 MR. LINK: All this started in the bankruptcy\ 6 court. 6 court.\ 7 So when Mr. Scarola says there was one disk\ 8 produced by the trustee with 27,000 e-mails on it,\ 9 that's not true. There are two disks and there's\ 10 74,000 e-mails. That's what Mr. Edwards\ 11 represented to the Court. I haven't seen these\ 12 disks, but that's what Mr. Edwards represented. 12 disks, but that's what Mr. Edwards represented. 13 So what happens after that is there is a 14 complicated negotiation between the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] 15 firm and Mr. Farmer, on behalf of the [REDACTED] Jaffe 16 firm, about how are they going to take these 17 documents, which are not [REDACTED] stamped, not [REDACTED] 18 stamped, and they wanted a hard copy to review so 19 they could make a privilege log, but they didn't 20 want to pay for it. The trustee didn't want to pay 21 for it. 22 21 for it.\ 22 Mr. Epstein volunteered with the special\ 23 [REDACTED] -- actually, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] -- but\ 24 Mr. Epstein's counsel volunteered that they would\ 25 use their machine to print out, print out from the 1 MR. LINK: Correct. disk that had no stamps on them, documents, and Mr. agreed to that. So they print the documents out -- long before our time, Judge -- they print the documents out, a set is given back to the trustee, and a set is given to Jaffe. The machine that pr'n s it, according to the magistrate and all the communications, doesn't retain any im o we start with two disks. To make it there was three. One had a pp6 m. with two disks and 74,000 complicated, But let's go They print them opt d copy documents. One to the trustee Jaffe. The magistrate want clay, and so you will see the magistrate 4 disks: One with 25,000 images on it an ith -- I can't tell you how many imag because the special says, "I didn't (4c:2 a it." I think -- this is Scott Link guessing -- I ant to be clear about this -- I think the disk that ends up at was the special disk. And here is why I think that: A, it was in a file that said Special . B none of which makes sense to me until we put this together. B, there's a hearing where Mr. Scarola 0ti,k YY 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 says to him, "You, special, review all these documents." Just like he said here, he said it ten times, "We have nothing to hide. You decide what should be turned over." The trail goes cold. I can't find a letter or communication from the special that says, "I looked. Here h y are." But I know this: The disk that w en to to copy had no sta 9 10 11 12 13 When you look at the judge's rde from Judge Ray that Mr. Scarola pointed it says will print a hard c 11 the documents contained on the disk es numbers added. That's how they we ASS i to do it. 14 15 16 S THE COURT: n nd hat disk, I presume, that f, you're allu did have numbers on them. I'm talk' t the individual documents. 17 18 19 20 21 R. L K: Yes, sir. They're all s mp itrolpe e . So they were not the disks 'ded -- again, I can't say they're not. I'm a t ?l,, of testifying. This is Scott Link's forensic review. 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: But again, Mr. Link, respectfully -- and I appreciate you're trying to put together and piece together something that transpired seven years ago -- the problem still 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 remains the same. Frankly, it doesn't really matter to this Court what format it was, who formatted it or to whom it was supposed to be intended. I'm sure there may be cases even after this Worley case that we'll be talking about tomorrow at length at the bar conference, b that case stands for the proposition globall Q th sanctity in that particular case of t attorney/client privilege to somet ing so rudimentary as whether or not ttorney referred a client to a given docto eatment. And the Supreme Court has clea ed that information is privileged and \\1 n be divulged. 14 15 s MR. LINK: 5, ir. I was just trying to answer your u 14441 s ; : en about the disk. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Okay. So the point that I'm tryi to make is when I'm saying it really doesn't tter all of those other details, what matters to THE + a h sanctity of those documents, for lack of a better term, the protection of those documents at Court is, again, Judge Ray's order relative to e all costs, and that shall not with the threat of sanctions retain any of those documents. 24 25 It says here, "Should it be determined that or Epstein" -- so not only does it go 1 2 3 4 to, but it goes to Epstein -- and constructively, if not explicitly, by this order extends to Mr. Epstein's legal representatives, from this Court's interpretation. 16 17 18 19 MR. LINK: And I th that. The bankruptcy court r e that. What I'm suggesting to t Co t is I don't think it's as clear as Mr S a la said. And he may go to Judge Ray and dge ay will have a hearing. Based on what ;e've ooked at, I don't believe it's as clear t t t what they did because it's possible, 1 4: 40e upon what I've read 20 THE COURT: That did? 21 MR. LINK: Yes. 22 23 THE COURT: So are you suggesting to me that -- so that I'm understanding correctly 24 25 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. I'm not here representing . MR. LINK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: "Should it be determined t a or Epstein retained images, op es of the subject documents on its compu otherwise, the Court retains juris ict on to award sanctions in favor of client," end quote. or his THE COURT: I understand. But you're here representing Mr. Epstein, who by virtue of this order that is being highlighted in part on the ELMO, that did what it was supposed to do pursuant to that order, returned everything that it was supposed to return, but through some happenstance had the disk containing they information that was the source of Ju order and somehow, therefore, shou d b exonerated by virtue of the fact that be we really don't know how may tten it, but assuming it should have done, miraculously this ns up in files and hence s uld essentially ignore the A4I;F, dictates of h der? MR. the urt. Let me make sure you understand what's x ,sdt:i disk. o, sir. And I think I've confused 0 The 27,550 pages on this disk, we've only ooked at 5,000 of them, okay? Of those 5,000, I will represent to you and you can look at them -- I don't believe any and I know none that we attached -- were communications between an attorney and a client. I asked Mr. Cassell and I asked Mr. Scarola to identify by number if there are any attorney/client communications and we would segregate them. The response I got, every page is an attorney/client communication. So that's one. THE COURT: But that's not what this order says, Mr. Link. The order doesn't say anyt 1 g about privileged documents. ACt MR. LINK: Judge, I understand t t. THE COURT: The order says th AC) will not retain any copies of documents contained on the disk prov it nor shall any the memory of Fowl i s copies. And we images or copies of sa w ents be retained in s, A r. already went th gh he sanctions. wler White MR. LI t we don't know -- here is the disconne don't know as we sit here that the disk hat we located there wasn't handed to them by cia Carney after Mr. Scarola gave him O 'ob and said look at it and give them whatever ou think is okay because the majority of the documents we've looked at have to deal with scheduling and sporting events and going out drinking and all kinds of things. It is not a group of documents that are on the privilege log. Here is the second thing we learned -- 1 2 3 4 THE COURT: And is that going to serve as the conduit to attempt to admit these documents into evidence in the face of the order that I have just read? 6 MR. LINK: Your Honor, I see the order. What I'm trying to get across -- I'm doing a lousy job. 7 THE COURT: No, you're not. 8 MR. LINK: -- is that I can't to 9 10 THE COURT: Try to get to the poi t that I'm really -- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MR. LINK: I don't t ct we can conclude today that this disk i It of their violating this order. This ld have been as a result of the special to looking at it and saying, "I don't see c n tions between attorney/client, I believe been a waiver of the work product base on giving it to Razorback, issue injection, these issues have been raised." 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So now you're suggesting that 0 t±k. ormer Judge Carney, to my knowledge a very well respected jurist who presided in the Circuit Court in Broward County, to my knowledge, and has done senior work here in the 15th Judicial Circuit somehow engaged in some type of ex parte communications with 1 2 3 4 MR. LINK: Judge, I can't because I've looked. I have searched. I'm not saying that at all. All I can piece together is that Mr. Scarola asked Special Carney to do that. 5 6 7 8 9 10 This disk, when we got -- we put a sticker on it. We went and looked at boxes and put stsc ers on things. The disk said Epstein Al p. Had no idea what was on it. Looked like ng we should put a sticker on. It came n, xhe disk, and we started looking at it. 11 12 13 14 15 When these issues ca asked tS ci to please give u h aginal boxes. We got \\ the original boxes f nd the disk in a folder that says J. Ca y inting on it. That's it. That's all a ' n this folder. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The watermarks, there's no conf' entia ity agreement, there's no stamps on the ume ts. They are stamped and there's a in there. So what I'm s if we're rying to figure out whether violated the order, I don't think it's as c ear as Mr. Scarola says. 23 24 25 Now, I wasn't there. I can't tell you what they did, Judge. But I do know this: Many of the documents that are on this disk and that are on 1 2 3 4 their privilege log have been used in this litigation. They have been used. They have produced some. They're exhibits that Mr. has asked about and answered that are on this privilege log. There's over a hundred of them. 6 7 8 9 10 11 A So this disk is not a disk of their pr'v leged documents. It's a disk of 27,500 docum . nd what's the most important part of thi s dge never held an in-camera. No udicially has looked at these. And tha here we need to be. 12 13 14 15 16 iO I don't think any 's matters. What matters is we have \\r ords, this Court shou de rmine they're relevant, see if there's i 'lege and see if that privilege has been aive That should be the process. they're relevant, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Co RT: On Thursday afternoon, which is be taken up by additional argument, where y I'm a committed member to the Bench Bar, as s encouraged not only by the 15th Judicial Circuit and Fourth District Court of Appeal but also by our local Bar Association, of which many of you are prominent members here, so you know that commitment must be taken seriously, and I do take it seriously, and then Friday I'm booked up with 1 2 3 4 hearings on other matters of the 14- to 15 hundred files that I'm carrying in this division, of which this is but one, with the trial to commence on the morning of Tuesday, the 13th of March. 6 7 8 9 THE COURT: That's a big endeavor. Thytj is an endeavor that is beyond this Court's ab C ' s!' physically and from a time perspectiv I'm not going to do that. 10 11 12 C MR. LINK: Your Honor, I that you don't have the time. I have of em a special . They don't wa 13 THE COURT: too late. 14 15 MR. LINK: Apt dge, the truth is never too late. 16 THE Please don't interrupt me. 17 I apologize for that. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT: Protocol dictates the orderly istration of justice and, correspondingly, the rderly preparation for trial. That preparation - and you'll be surprised when it comes to larger cases like this -- not only applies to counsel and their team of attorneys that the respective side have, but it also applies to the singular individual who is responsible for this orderly MR. LINK: Yes, sir. presentation. I often refer to a case that I printed directly from the Fourth District Court of Appeal, RJ Tobacco Company versus Calloway, and it talks about the trial judge's ultimate responsibility. There it was to ensure app o riate attorney behavior, but it talks also abo o t exercising its control of the litigat the trial, of important pretrial heari gs ike we're having here today, and talks this is especially true in length -takes cases and goes on to speak about court should and should not tolerat t comes to interruptions and other matte th don't necessarily befit the A e presentatio crherwise excellent counsel. But was trying to communicate while we were speaking over each other is that this is the V son why courts have spoken to the issue of ly and reasonableness and preparation. I can't speak to the matter in which this case has been prepared by counsel for Mr. Epstein over the last 3,000 and some odd days. I can, however, speak to what is before me now. Why someone before you and Miss Rockenbach got involved in this case -- because I saw Mr. Ackerman's name in this matter in the four years that I've been presiding over this case -- I saw his involvement, I saw what he attempted to do. His timing was critical - whether his work was or wasn't is not for me to say, but certainly his time in which he spent in representing Mr. Epstein would have been cr cal to any successor counsel's involvement case. 0 Thankfully, for the purposes f m st of the decision-making that I do her the civil circuit courtroom I had experienc gained a significant amount of ce in a relatively quick amount of ti was baptism by fire, I think some woul al it. But I had opportunities e to get into urtroom long before others did who had experience level. Whether that was good or bad, the results speak for themselves. d have that opportunity. And to learn a deal, not so much from those who I work with, ut even more those who I work against, so to speak; my opposing counsel. The wealth of knowledge that I gained from how they did their work was astounding and something that I cherish even to this day. But what it taught me more than anything was that preparation is critical, whether the case is a \$10,000 whiplash case or whether it's a \$10 million class action suit. And the very essence of what's being brought to my attention today, where requests are made for in-camera inspections at a time that's essentially commencement of trial, a special 44ew two to three business days prior to the thousands of documents several days b h commencement of trial for the firs ti e, despite recalcitrance from Whi heir -- somebody reviewing their files app for the first time mere weeks before the going to court, those types of things ha held -- I was going to say in high reg, t what was meant by what I'm saying is pry Agf ion e material in getting to these e was nothing that I knew of despite agai what appears to be brief recalcitrance on the part to turn over the materials elves, this could have been done six months go, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, five years ago, six years ago, and it should have been done then. To bring these types of matters before the Court at this particular time is, in my view, inappropriate. 0 t ?l,, Now, if this was newly-discovered evidence 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 that was not in the hands of Mr. Epstein's lawyers since 2009, whenever this all came to fruition, then I would say we'd have to take a different approach. But the very nature of the documents that we're talking about -- again, rightly or wrongly held -- were in fact held by ite, Epstein's counsel, at an incredible crud ; ti e in this process; and that being in and a 010, when the Rothstein firm imploded, these e-mails were apparently confi when somebody made the decision that in paying for the copy costs, they b a d over to . And if I h t of an incredulous tone to that stateme i s probably purposeful. A411:tr 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 But th c remains, material Mr. Link, that these in the hands of Epstein's attorneys from he inception of the issue itself. And to now the Court with not five pages of documents ok at, but 27,000, or whatever that number -- it escapes me because of its shear mass -- is impossible and is not going to be countenanced here. 23 24 25 And I understand what you're going to tell me because I've gotten a flavor for some of these documents that have been provided. 1 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 2 3 4 THE COURT: And that is that they are detrimental to the position taken by Mr. and that they are helpful to the position taken by Mr. Epstein. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The issue, though, is one of whether t 2e protocol and the orderly administration 'us ice is going to be forsaken notwithstandi i the aspect of privilege and the sancti y o privileged communications, whether all o se considerations are going to be thrown ou alanced against material that has been hands of AS' Mr. Epstein's lawy S r day one. And I, for one, am not goi to acrifice protocol over what may or may t b number one, privileged, and if not priv certainly late disclosed documentation of a massive nature. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Should the amount of documentation be a citnminative factor in a court's analysis in this ontext, based upon 35 years of compound experience, bench and bar, and a little bit more now than half on the bench, I do not believe that the orderly administration of justice should be countenanced and should be disruptive. Should be disruptive. And what I meant by that, should the destruction of the orderly administration of justice be countenanced? And the answer to that question, in my respectful view, is no. Because if I do it once, then I'm setting a precedent, even though I know trial courts traditionally do do that, according to case law. And forgiv f r my choice of words, but as someone who 1 for member now of the bench -- not a s op judge, but lc, a senior member of the bench at sends a message to my colleagues believe is the appropr not doing what I MR. LINK: I~eSond, your Honor? THE COURT: A MR. LI 'rst I want to apologize. I did not mean in errupt the Court when you were spea l4c, MR. LINK: Second, we're 7,000 pages, we're talking about 49 exhibits. There are only 49 exhibits that we are asking the Court to look at. So that it is not 27,000 pages. not talking about 0 Icl?S\` > Third, I think most importantly I absolutely agree your Honor has a difficult, difficult weighing decision to make between staying on course COURT: Not at all. Go ahead. and what I think is more important than any of this, which is getting to the truth. And I believe in my heart, your Honor, the reason I'm so passionate about this and the reason I apologize for interrupting you is if this courtroom is looking for the truth, then those 49 document8 have got to come into court. They have got front of the jury. 0 THE COURT: But they're not c min in here, and I would hope elsewhere, i s going to be at the sacrifice not only as orderly administration of just also in derogation of a federal bankr urt's order or any court of recognized j tion's order that would have the necessa u rvisionary control of a given case, bu also at the potential extermination or derogation of a privilege. And for all of those why I am extremely reluctant to start g these things into consideration just a few ays prior to trial. Again, if this was something that came into play that was being hidden by the other side, and I'm talking now generically, and your side discovered that information at the 11th hour, this would be an entirely different discussion. And that's one of the things I want to emphasize for this record. But that's not the case. As I mentioned -- and this is the last time I'll say it -- these documents have been in the possession of Mr. Epstein from the inception of this case as we know it. They didn't move. nd the problems that are inherent in this si, of which this Court simply does not have me to address prior to trial, are all of tho e reasons that I have just described to The disruption of the orderly administra justice, the sacrosanct nature of t lege, and of even S c more importance is said I wouldn't repeat; A; and that is, th at 11 times analysis, f t inception Epstein lawyers had this mat ialf . And, obviously, the timeliness, or the ect untimeliness of the request for the C rt w to take these matters into consideration, o (Ceifh they are well beyond when exhibits that were nown or should have been known were not listed. material to the MR. LINK: Your Honor, may I have one more shot, please? I know you have been very patient with me. THE COURT: If it's going to be any different than what you've told me. If it's going to be the 1 2 same, we've already established, and it's a matter of record, and I have made my ruling accordingly. 3 4 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. I understand that. I'll be very quick. 6 7 8 9 You asked about whether there was any hiding Atik i of these documents. And one thing I want t e Court to see is this: These are -- Mr. Scaro do t want me to put that up on the screen, so ' 1 hand it to you. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C.) If you look at the privi log which they filed, which Judge ' dequate and I don't believe there wa nit er privilege log filed, so I don't ere's a privilege log - but that's anot d another issue -- but if you lZmme look at the r'v ege log and the e-mails that it relates me if a lawyer looking at that woul be able to tell the real content of the that Mr. was writing. Because I Crh you have an obligation to disclose in a way at allows a lawyer to make a determination of whether it's privileged or not. 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Mr. Link, you're making my point for me. Mr. Ackerman, , had these materials ever since day one. I don't know how much more I can make this clear. As I said, the analysis would be completely different if it was shown to me that somehow, some way the Searcy, Denney firm, Mr. Jaffe -- I was going to say Ron Rothstein, but I don't want to get him confused with the wellrespected coach and former coach of the Hea - Scott Rothstein was sitting on this stu Th t's not what happened here. That's the p f t at I'm not only issue of the trying to drive home and emphasize the issue of timeliness, not the privilege has not been te t first and it foremost is the fact t er, Epstein's illiSv own lawyers, have s tin on this from day one for seven, eigh MR. LI Djt we don't know -- the point I'm trying take, I don't know that they looked at it. COURT: That's not my problem. LINK: Maybe Carney gave it to them and aid, "Don't look." THE COURT: That's not my problem. If Mr. Epstein has a case against his attorneys, he can deal with those claims to his satisfaction. I'm not here to determine whether or not someone did or did not commit malpractice. MR. LINK: I understand that, Judge. THE COURT: I'm here only to deal with this issue that is before me; and that is, whether a wholesale late disclosure of significant exhibits that have been in the possession of [REDACTED], Epstein's attorneys, from day one and, thus, as a matter of continuum in Epstein's possession, his possession is constructive to the possession of the attorneys that represented him, that string of attorneys that have been representing him since 2010, and that if nobody got around to looking at [REDACTED] documents -- and how that could be understood is beyond me, as not only a seasoned attorney but also now a seasoned judge -- until you and Miss Rockenbach took it upon yourselves and your paralegal to do it is not my problem. And that's all I'll say on the subject. I have made my ruling. It is a several-pronged ruling. And for the reasons that I've stated, that's the reason why I am not going to engage in some type of a last-minute evaluation of documents that could have been evaluated from 2010 all the way to March of 2018. But nobody ever took it upon themselves to even look at those documents in [REDACTED] [REDACTED] 1 2 3 4 file. How that could be the case, who knows? But I'm not finding fault with anything you or Miss Rockenbach or Miss did. That's not the issue. You've done your job. 6 7 8 MR. LINK: I understand. Your Honor, may I have one minute to confer with appellate co n el to make sure there's nothing I need to do es rye this? 9 10 0 sdf THE COURT: Absolutely. Let' Cu t take a brief recess. 11 (Thereupon, a as taken.) 12 13 14 short\\44(c60, THE COURT: Thank you again. Please have a s elcome back. 15 16 17 MR. Sc Your Honor, I want to hopefully tie up a ew ose ends on the matter that has just been uled on. 18 19 20 IZZIIIIr I correct in understanding that the !4;16 0 ,0 e ndant is prohibited from making any use of the 24 late-disclosed exhibits? 21 ?41. THE COURT: Yes. 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Next, sir, we would request the defendant be required to relinquish possession of all copies of the privileged documents to the Court under seal. They have expressed some concern 1 2 3 4 stating that we have asked them to destroy them. We want them turned over to the Court under seal. They should no longer have possession of those until such time as somebody rules that they are entitled to have possession. 6 7 And I want to make one brief comment a o t that, if I could can. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Your Honor knows very well that owS White is a very large law firm that keep me iculous time records with regard to the se s that they render. And the concept • is impossible to reconstruct through th a records what was received, when it to ived, when it was reviewed, what pe d with it, who was informed of what was a '.41I, p Z 7 ing 41 with it quite frankly is absolute i c nceivable to me; that a law firm of that ize, eeping records the way it did, cannot r uct what went on with regard to this mation. 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: And that's a good point. What I was going to point out earlier and I failed to do that, and I appreciate the reminder, is that I would have expected certainly in deference to the fact that Mr. Epstein was a client of that someone from would have had the ability to weigh in somehow as to these critical issues. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive when I say that having served Mr. Epstein in their capacity as counsel, it's my respectful belief that they owed an obligation to Mr. Epstein, if not this C u t, to explain how and why they had access and t ese records in their possession in light court order and in light of this ongoing gation. And as a matter of respect to Mr. • ein and his ongoing legal team, to hay some type of affirmative steps to h t with this issue head on because of arent implications of same. So I a i t nt to make clear that I'm finding absolute no ault with Mr. Link, Miss Rockenbach, Miss ampbe 1 or anyone else from the Link and ken ch firm in terms of what they did, albeit e manner in which they had to do it and the iming, unfortunately, of the matter from their perspective in having to do it, but that takes nothing away from what the Court has already remarked upon concerning the fact that now in the representation of Mr. Epstein had these records from the inception is one of the reasons for the Court's ruling. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, may we include in the order a direction that opposing counsel is required to relinquish possession of all copies of the privileged documents to the Court under seal? THE COURT: Well, the only thing that obviously has to be taken into consider i the appellate rights of Mr. Epstein and h 're going to preserve those rights in igh of the fact that the Court has rejected t st minute request for in-camera inspection reasons that I've already stated at leng e record. MR. SCAROLA: s why I've suggested that they be relinqu o the Court under seal, your Honor. The given an exhibit number. To the exte the appellate court finds it reas able and necessary to examine those ume°it\*ts, the appellate court will have the tunity to do that. 0 THE COURT: So you're suggesting to file with the Clerk of Court under seal the documents at issue? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, that's correct. THE COURT: That's better stated. Do you have any objection? MS. ROCKENBACH: No objection, your Honor. THE COURT: So stipulated. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor will recall that opposing counsel has also informed the Court on multiple occasions that backup in the preparation for this case was being provided by the Gun r law firm, and we would like a certification, n t em as well that no copies have been reta MR. LINK: They don't have an dge. THE COURT: Okay. That' e. If Mr. Link and Miss Rockenbach are r ing that to the Court, I'm satisfied w representation. ,,(( MR. SCAROLA: ccept that representation as well, your H r, ut what we would like and believe we e e itled to is a list of all persons to whom e p ileged documents have been diss mate . And I'm particularly concerned in t)&s r ard; that the testimony of any witness C5 be influenced by their improper exposure to rivileged documents. So we ask that a complete list of all persons to whom those documents have been disseminated or the contents of the documents that been disseminated be provided to us. And I know that Mr. Cassell has some concerns in that regard as well that he would like to 1 2 address with the Court. So if he may have an opportunity to speak to the Court in this regard -- 3 THE COURT: That's fine. 4 Mr. Link, if you want to comment on that? 6 MR. LINK: Yeah. I think I can solve that problem very easily, your Honor. 7 8 9 10 11 The documents were within my law fi an my client. That's it. They haven't bee to any third parties. There's not a thir ty witness, V) m. u for me to put on the stand. ° have ruled we can't use them. We won' t 12 MR. SCAROLA: k nclude Mr. Epstein? 13 THE COURT: include Mr. Epstein? 14 15 16 MR. SCARO H Mr. Epstein been provided with copies t documents or the contents of these pr d documents? 17 18 19 L K: I just said my client. My law firm lient. And I can say legal counsel, oldberger. So that's it. 20 21 MR. SCAROLA: That may require some further relief that we can address at another time. 22 23 24 25 And so that the record is clear, your Honor, we believe that sanctionable conduct has occurred, and we are reserving the right at a later time - but it's not something that needs to be addressed 1 2 now -- but we're reserving the right to address the issue of appropriate sanctions at a later time. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 Mr. Cassell? 6 7 8 9 MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. Paul Cassell, and I'm here this afternoon, and I understand it's getting late in the day, 1 e very brief, representing three victim, EW and Jane Doe. Just one housekeeping 10 11 We have filed a motion t. ervene, which is unopposed. 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: The o g I need is an order. Everything else wa ed but the proposed order. So if i < uepp'osed, then phrase it as such and I' a lad to execute it. 16 MR. ASS Thank you, your Honor. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ust so the record is clear, on July 19, 2010, s en id a half years ago, LM said these very and Jane Doe through counsel said these documents are privileged. So the Epstein entity ents are privileged, and on February 23, 2011, that is Mr. Epstein and his array of lawyers were on notice at that time that every one of these 45 documents was privileged. 25 And then what happened on Friday night, March 2nd, was that Mr. Link put into the public court file summaries of the e-mails, quoting from them directly, and we believe that was improper. And indeed, we've heard today Mr. Link represent to the Court all we wanted was an in-camera review, but of course they wanted something more. They wap4d to put those in the public court file beca knew than the cat would be out of the publicity would ensue, and other d~magg to my clients could occur. And so afternoon to raise what i essence concerns about ASS" privileged materiA . Epstein. When I use Dg sy ere this re time of the ease of those the term "Mr. E tei " I'll entity. be referring to this Let ear. There is no doubt from sworn test ony in front of the Court that on January 10, 2 8 a nts of this law firm picked up a disk from ( Mh law firm, and the law Arm, as you know from the ELMO, had been directed some six or seven years earlier not to retain any copies of these documents. So there should be no dispute about the circumstances right now. At that time Mr. Link's law firm, Mr. Epstein, were in possession of documents that was in possession of that were in violation of a court order. Mr. Scarola has used the term "stolen documents" and I think that, frankly, describes accurately the nature of the documents, although who the thief was, of course, remains to be determined. So the question in front of you rig ow is what to do about this. Well, we know t ing. We know there's been absolutely no was er of attorney/client privilege. Hc! we know that? Well, your Honor knows th law very well. To be a waiver of atto ent privilege is something that is voted. There has to be a clear, intentiopol waver of the privilege. And how do we k w t re's not been a clear, intentio 1 w er of the privilege? Just use Mr. nk s word. Things are clear as mud. Well, l0 i som thing is clear as mud, there cannot be an 0 'n; ntional waiver. So there's no waiver of ttorney/client privilege. I know the hour is late. THE COURT: You don't have to feel rushed. want to make sure that you're heard and that your clients are heard. MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. We appreciate that because what we've heard shockingly this afternoon is -- let me -- I know we need to be careful with language -- let's just say an accused abuser, Mr. Epstein, the man accused of abusing my three clients, we are told has seen these very privileged documents. We're told Mr. Goldb r er has seen them. We're told, of course, in and his law firm has seen them. And of c his very large law firm, the Wh to aw firm, has V seen them as well. so th stion is what do we do? And And we're mindful fact you're about to embark on what's 1 be a very time-consuming trial. So I wo e to impose six remedies that we would as y u o execute today; none of which, I want to Ehas ze, will require consumption of the Courts time other than signing will provide for you. the proposed order The first is -- Mr. Scarola has already asked ,A..? !;::)or this and I believe obtained this, but I want the record to be clear. My clients are asking that you preclude any use of the privileged exhibits either directly, indirectly or derivatively during the upcoming trial because if someone relies on this information, for example, in asking a question 1 2 3 to Mr. or asking a question to any of the witnesses that Mr. is presenting, that could implicitly reveal privileged information. 4 6 THE COURT: We have all done this, so don't feel like you're alone. Are you talking about Mr. Epstein? 7 8 MR. CASSELL: I'm sorry. If Mr. Ep 'n' attorneys do that, that's the concern 9 10 11 12 13 So, for example, if they're f rmu sting any questions to Mr. , the uldn't be able to use any privileged inform n cause we're worried that that coul citly disclose privileged communi 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Secondly, wo d like Epstein counsel -- and that's a br t m that includes -- I've probably lost tra e different law firms, but Mr. 'nk aw firm, the law firm, I b,,l.iev. there are several others, Mr. Goldberger's g ailyf ecords, irm, we want them all to canvass their canvass their e-mails, canvass their servers and tell us if they -- how did this happen? How did this happen? 23 24 THE COURT: You're talking about how did the firm garner these records? 25 MR. CASSELL: Correct. 1 2 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that any of their servers are going to shed light on that. 3 MR. CASSELL: Well, it may be, for example -- 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: I don't want to go on a fishing expedition, as you can appreciate. I don't want to exacerbate the problem; meaning, I don't wa unnecessarily delve into myriad e-mail s ms to gain knowledge that is likely residin firm in some form or on, whether it be current or former emplo or otherwise. So I am not going to go to t '-nt at this juncture without furth or basic proof for going in that dire 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 It MR. CASSEL T t would be our request. But there would Alill a .road 41 - expediti you phrased it fishing would phrase it a retrieval expe tion -- to retrieve what's happened here. A B at the minimum we would ask your Honor then to it s,0 Oh ct Epstein attorneys who were previously before is Court, to examine the circumstances here. 22 23 24 25 You noted that you thought there might have been an obligation for them to address the Court head on. I'm here telling you that the victims believe they, , has an obligation to 1 address the victims head on. How did this happen? 2 3 4 6 7 THE COURT: And understandable. I was not confining the obligation of to those entities that I mentioned. It was those entities that came to the Court's mind initially. I don't want this record to suggest I wasn't taking 1 to account the concerns of the victims. 8 9 10 11 12 13 MR. CASSELL: Certainly, your Ho or, wasn't suggesting -- and this, of course, y first opportunity -- you have alway erred to building a record -- this is my op y to build a record as well. So we o know how these materials were obt 14 15 16 17 The third e want to know is who were the materia ributed to? Mr. Scarola has made that req st o behalf of his clients. I'm making that eques on behalf of my clients. 18 19 20 21 22 ?Se 're told that Mr. Goldberger has seen it, e told Mr. Epstein has seen it. We want to 0 ,t. ?L now who else has seen it. And this, frankly, may require looking at e-mails, looking at servers and that sort of thing. 23 24 25 I think the record should be clear that in a routine case, you might say, "Well, that's going to be too expensive." Your Honor is aware this is not a routine case because I understand that two of the finest and largest law firms here in Florida are currently representing Mr. Epstein, so they certainly have the resources to search -- to accomplish the searches that would be involved to see how these materials got anywhere. The fourth thing is we want an orde4\$5;Lng Mr. Epstein not to reveal the content t is information to anyone. We are tol th t Mr. Epstein has seen the info on, so he should be singled out specifical n order. Fifth -- I think s already been recovered. All co the documents are to be turned over and se to the Court. Sixth, w t our temporary sealing order, which we ill rovide later today, to be converted into & permanent sealing order. Mr. Link filed in V is court file, we believe highly mp~operly, information that he was on notice was Te. rivileged. And he said today he wanted an in-camera review. Well, you do not get an in-camera review when you put those very documents, or at least summaries of those very documents, into the public court file. We want the Friday night filing, the notice of 1 2 redacted materials, to be placed under permanent seal. 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 And then the last request is just a housekeeping request. We're obviously scrambling to sort out the implications of all this. I'm sure I have missed some points that need to be m Due to the late filing of this document, 1 t the public filing of the document imprope like leave to be able to file a su would V application for additional re s after the trial concludes and after we hav about how the document obtained and who they went to. ved information 14 15 And so tho ar > the requests that I make on 4 behalf of m t o lients. 16 THE All right. 17 r. Link? 18 LINK: Yes, sir. Thank you. 19 l4c, THE COURT: Thank you. 20 21 22 23 O MR. LINK: I'm not sure how I can be more clear about where we got the documents from. We got them from, your Honor. I don't think that's a mystery anymore. 24 25 I've represented to the Court who I have shared the papers with. The Court has ruled that 1 2 3 4 we're going to take the disks that we have and put it under seal. We'll destroy all the other copies. That's what Mr. Scarola asked for and that's what we said we would do. 6 7 8 As to the filing, I never said all I wanted was an in-camera inspection. What I said w s Mr. Scarola said he would like one and I d great, let's have one. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 Most important is this: The ocu ents that we filed -- and there was some m unication with Mr. Cassell -- I want to e the record is clear -- we did two th e filed redacted documents. We red 1 of the names of EW, LM and Jane Doe, a thi ourt has instructed. So their initi s Ag w ;t: ewiped out. Mr. Cassell called me and s m looking at a document and i see thei initials." What he was looking at is we serve the counsel and hand delivered to the -- did not put it in the public file -- the nredacted documents so we would all know what was in there. 22 THE COURT: By the court, you mean 23 MR. LINK: To you. To the judge. 24 THE COURT: -- to myself. 25 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 1 2 THE COURT: Not as far as the court file is concerned. 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 MR. LINK: The court file only contains the redacted version. We have double checked that. I asked Mr. Cassell to tell me if I missed a redaction. Could it happen? Yes, it could h ppen. We haven't found one. If there was one w sn't redacted, we'd be glad to redact it. t e only thing that was filed in the clerk ejwas the redacted version. 11 Thank you, Judge. 12 AS ) \\ THE COURT: All r' t hank you. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 itt S S' Much of whichr uch of the relief that has been reques h essentially been taken care lame SiCi l) of I believ r gh the Court's prior order; that e disk containing the documents that are bajng sought to be introduced at trial to take d will be permitted to be filed under seal. Cih~sanitized redacted versions of those records 'm also ordering to be sealed in an abundance of caution just in case there may be some error, not intentional, on the part of counsel who filed those records. 24 25 Mr. Epstein will be barred from referring to any of those records as it relates to the documents that were gathered from or from any other source that would have included those records that were the subject of Judge Ray's order. So it's to preclude anything coming in through the back door which wouldn't be allowed through the front. Mr. Link, did you want to comment o is. MR. LINK: Yes. I wanted to rem nd Court we have over a hundred exhibits th t w re listed on that disk that are already in i court file. We've used them in deposi So I'm wondering -- those are uded. THE COURT: m not talking about those. I'm tal g 1 out the ones that have been derived fro w r and that have been sought to be in od c d as part of the 748 or 724, or what er this number is, or the 45 that have been as privileged and have not been ruled upon ill not be ruled upon prior to trial because f the reasons that I have explained in detail earlier. MR. LINK: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: Mr. Cassell, did I leave out anything else? MR. CASSELL: Yes. We want to know how the 1 2 3 Epstein entities came into possession of the documents, and then we want to know where they went. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Because of the court ruling, I don't find that to be a front burner issue at this time. Please don't confuse anyone here. Court's reference to front burner as opp being an issue of importance. Front simply means that in preparation for a tr al hat is actually a mere two to three 'ess days away, if you count tomorrow, which really count as a court business day bec a my obligations to the Bench Bar Conferen n t have the opportunity to really delve to hat prior to trial. 15 16 17 18 19 And as r arola pointed out, I believe, earlier, ha an be done at another time. So I am cert nly not going to forget that it needs to be ut it will be ordered that it be done post 20 21 22 23 Any other remedies that are sought as you go along -- I understand the relative late nature of these revelations; hence, you are not precluded from filing a supplemental motion. 24 25 I also note that you have requested attorney's fees and costs related to this endeavor, and I'm 1 reserving on that as well. 2 3 4 MR. CASSELL: But related to that is the distribution. The cat is now wandering out of the bag, so time is of the essence. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Right. And again, I think that in an abundance of caution, and I understand y concerns, but what the attorneys here r iz and Mr. Epstein is also under this or is that no further dissemination is going o b made. I think that goes without sayin far as the attorneys are concerned. own each of them known Mr. Scarola ISg i Terry, Mr. Burlington, seated at counsel tabl o ny years, as I have * Sr and I think the nize that when this Court makes a sta n that it is abundantly clear that it will e rced to the letter. I have no doubt in m mind hat they will all be respectful of the curt der of non-dissemination of any of those ents hence forth. 20 21 22 23 24 25 And Mr. Link has already represented to the Court that other than Mr. Epstein and his co-counsel, that there have been no eyes laid upon these documents. Hence, I'm accepting that representation, as Mr. Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well. 1 2 3 MR. CASSELL: We haven't heard, of course, from . Will the Court direct them to make similar representations? 4 6 7 8 THE COURT: I believe that I have sufficient authority to do that under these relatively peculiar circumstances. My jurisdiction, t is somewhat limited because they have w' from the case. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0 As a general blanket order I froul¢i simply say that all attorneys who have o representing Mr. Epstein shall be subject order of confidentiality, of se n d of nondissemination of a information that is contemplated in the documents that are part of the umbr 1 der of Judge Ray. And that would include 1 o he exhibits that we spoke about toda and t at have been filed as a matter of /4 :r YIZ V 19 20 21 MR. CASSELL: Could they also be directed to 0 IcAm?k ake a representation as to who they have distributed the documents to? 22 23 THE COURT: Mr. Link has already -- are you talking about ? 24 MR. CASSELL: 25 THE COURT: I don't think that I have that ability. MR. CASSELL: Could I be heard on that issue then? I believe that you do have -- all right. We'll deal with that later then, your Honor. MR. LINK: Can I make a suggestion, your Honor, that might be helpful? THE COURT: Sure. MR. LINK: We now have, I think S36 boxes they delivered; I believe al th boxes they have. The disk, the original we now have it. I don't know for sure, b t that there's another disk that they d kept. If the Court will instruct as p f his order that we (S 0 maintain the bo, cause them back, will take possession of the boxes. wanted HE COURT: If you are telling me that you Cf rs e a thority from Mr. Epstein to retain those o and Mr. Epstein is essentially giving you arte blanche, you and Miss Rockenbach and Mr. Goldberger jointly, the authority to make any decisions necessary to protect his interests, that motion would be granted. MR. LINK: I'm standing here with this puzzled look because I'm not sure what that means, frankly. All I was trying to do is say I will preserve the documents, the original files, because I don't think there's another set of files somewhere. had asked me to return them once we went through them, and if the Court can instruct me to hold the boxes, then I will do that. 44t THE COURT: I don't have a problem m that instruction, so I'll leave it at . You're speaking on behalf of your client Mr. Epstein, as well as your own law firm, an take it, as well, so I hay oblem making -- in entering this order si re current counsel for Mr. Epstein. Goldberger, I MR. LINK: will make c an . >you, Judge. I think that easier. MR. : Your Honor, there are two addi onal matters that I would hope can be pos 1 of in advance of the start of trial. THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCAROLA: One is Mr. Epstein's motion to strike Dr. Jansen, and the second is issues with regard to adverse inference. I think that both of those matters have been fully briefed. Mr. Burlington is here to present argument in response to the motion regarding Dr. Jansen. I suggest -- your Honor has told us that we're finishing at 4:30 today -- that we allot 15 minutes, seven and a half minutes per side, to each of those matters. THE COURT: All right. Off the record. Aral r MR. LINK: Your Honor, we have a mo,1 t strike the 79 exhibits that they disc ate after the cutoff. I think if we ng to do a goose and a gander, the Court ld rule those exhibits are stricken. (Discussion held off the record.) THE COURT: Well, -- I want to review that motion n ince my concentration has been on the se ci that I mentioned before. I'll be gla t al with it prior to trial. MR. IN I'm comfortable with your Honor rulin&onte papers if Mr. Scarola is. COURT: Well, I'd rather, since it's ? Spthing of the magnitude of trial exhibits and 79 n number, I'd rather have argument on the subject, to be perfectly with you. I appreciate your willingness to entrust the Court with that endeavor, but I think it's better to have you heard on the record. All right. Mr. Burlington, which one did you want to tackle first? MR. BURLINGTON: Your Honor, it's his motion. MR. SCAROLA: The motion to strike Dr. Jansen. THE COURT: All right. MR. BURLINGTON: Unless you want me to argue both sides, your Honor. THE COURT: What's the other motion2" MR. SCAROLA: Adverse interest nor, from the assertion of the Fifth Amendment. MR. LINK: Which one are MS. TERRY: Jansen. S'' Good afternoo SSu # Honor. start over toda See if I can MR. LINK: Jansen O THE CO • u have done fine. ' ) MR. N : I don't remember winning one yet, SO maybe this one. I have hopes. V zQur Honor, this is our motion to strike c ora 0 r. ansen. And I know the Court has read the aper, so I'm going to be very brief about this. We have struggled since coming before this Court in December with what this case is, because I keep saying to the Court that Mr. wants to try a defamation action, he wants to clear his name, he wants defamation-type damages, and the Court keeps rebuking me properly and saying, no, this is a malicious prosecution action. We're not going to try a defamation action. Their expert that they want to put on the stand for damages has no opinion, your Honor, as to damages. Not one. He can't talk about any mage suffered by Mr. , if any. His so pi ion is that he was given defamatory state counsel, defamatory statements, an to d to do a search to see how many times efamatory statements hit a web page many people touched the web page w-4 defamatory statement on it. So, for ex le, there's AgE e that says R h t 'n and (s\\ a newspaper articic, and that magazine or that wsp 2ler has 3,000 people that look at the news er He says there are 3,000 hits. He can't / c lor if one of the 3,000 people read the C5 r \*cle, what they thought about the article, did t make any difference, did they change their view of Mr. did they not do business with him, did they fire him? He says he has no economic damages, so how does it help a jury to hear about nine million web hits when you can't point to a single person -- I 1 2 3 said, "Tell me one person, one person, Dr. Jansen, that you know read one of these articles." He said, "I can't. I have no idea." 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 The other thing that was important is he said, "I just use an average of data. I can't tell you exactly because they accumulated over month .' He can't even tell us how many times this a.4cle was actually touched. All he can tell yo to the Palm Beach Shiny Sheet webs 4V average month 3,000 people lo that help the jury from a I go on an . So how can expert determine whether the filing of icious prosecution action caused Mr. any damage? 14 Thank you 15 THE CO 1 right. Thank you. 16 Mr. gton? 17 18 LINGTON: I'm Phil Burlington, here on f Brad 19 20 21 1 tIcm> NLAuestions. First, is the expert qualified? That's 7 L This determination comes down to four not being challenged. 22 23 24 25 The suggestion that he cannot give opinions on damages ignores the nature of the damages for which case law is clear, which includes reputational damages, shame and humiliation. They have acknowledged shame and humiliation as an element of damage. We've citied on page 6 of our response five Florida cases. Two of them, Florida Supreme Court cases, make it very clear reputational damages are prosecution a valid element of a malicious case. So how do you monetize how does jiCiy monetize the damage that has been suf y my client? We've citied cases, and t ere are cases we rely on from outside the juri but it's we cite this all d malicious clear from the many Flori arises from the common prosecution is des any times as an ancient cause of action 's all developed by the common law.AQ liance on foreign jurisdictions is not u especially when it's consistent with ion. a law. t the clearest discussion is in a case d Browning, which says that in reputational amages, which are particularly hard to prove, and there's no case that I've ever read where in a malicious prosecution case a plaintiff was put to the burden of bringing in an individual who said, "I didn't send my case to this lawyer because I heard he was accused of a crime." That, of course, 1 2 would require, of course, months of trial to pull people in. But that's not our burden. 3 4 6 7 THE COURT: Right. And we're not looking at a defamation case from the standpoint of publication, where publication is really part of it. So that's not what is being sought here in terms of t e expert testimony, as I understand it. 8 9 10 MR. BURLINGTON: Well, we're see t prove the dissemination, as we would in case. amation 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: Well, dis 9c on and recognized or acknowledged public£ re two different is what I'm t 'n to say. I'm essentially lcr agreeing with y I hink, in the sense that there's no e prove publication. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Whe "publication," I'm talking about the nsump ion of that information by another party id that party's -- and the effect on that ner, or the effect on the person who agreed ith that material. You're speaking only to the issue of dissemination. 22 23 24 25 MR. BURLINGTON: The Browning case says that the two primary factors in determining reputational damages are the gravity of the false allegations - and here we have a young, talented trial lawyer who 1 2 3 4 is being accused not only of heinous crimes, but heinous crimes involving undermining the judicial system. And then the second factor noted in Browning, and it's cited in other cases, is the degree of exposure of the false allegations. 6 7 8 9 10 11 And I've cited multiple cases in my brse that say that when courts have evaluated the excessiveness of a malicious prosecut on rd, one of the critical considerations is he egree of exposure of the false allegat And this is how we are doing it in the In g 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 \\ i If we were 30, 40 a go and this was done ISS" and let's say it w I exposed in this area of .4 E the country, Pa Be h County, Broward, Miami, we would come i the newspaper's circulation to give the ome idea of the exposure. That does ly have much probative value in the tern t age. I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 0 And Dr. Jansen is undisputedly qualified, robably more than anybody, to do this, and he explained how conservative his analysis was. And he's not going to tell the jury that the nine million six hundred hits means that nine million six hundred thousand people read this story and now believed that Brad is a criminal, and so forth and so on. And one of the factors here is a very wellrecognized principle of the Bigelow case, which is a U.S. Supreme Court case, that says that one of the fundamental principles of justice is that if a defendant engages in wrongful conduct that prates uncertainty as to damages, that falls o t~em.T You can't put the plaintiff to what is an ially impossible burden, assuming we pro e o r cause of action. And that, of course, issue that this trial will be all about. SS But they're tryin o really you can never ' prove reputational g without bringing in Joe Six Pack off th tr t and inquiring of him how 4 ,,me much of a gage e's holding against Brad because e allegations. That is simply not the standar it helpful to the jury? Well, the jury is o .going to understand the complexity of issemination of information on the Internet, and this witness is specifically qualified to do that. 0 , ?ha > So when we go through the analysis is he qualified, is the issue relevant, is it helpful to the jury, we satisfy those three. Then we come to reasons to exclude. And the only reason I saw raised in their motion for excluding it was vague references to confusion. And I don't see how there could be confusion, given the clear parameters of what Dr. Jansen testified to were his directions, his methodology. There was ik terminology that he has to explain to the j 2r, but all experts do that in complex situation Th jury here would not be capable of mak analysis of the degree of dissemin do on the Internet as a matter of their on sense. THE COURT: I didn't e motion as suggesting a prior Dau lysis being required. MR. BURLINGTO sorry? THE COURT: 't read the motion filed by Mr. Link to 4jk bout his seeking a Frye or Daubert BURLINGTON: Correct. That's my reading welt, your Honor. Now, there was a little preamble, as i7>\\hi...Veen on many motions here, about how this is all there has about a defamation action, and we've cited in our response the term "defamation" is a general term in the English language, and we've cited Miriam Webster, which is about as bread as you can get on a definition. 7 L The fact that that term is used not only in describing certain parts of the task that was assigned to Dr. Jansen or in our argument regarding the nature of the damages, it's because that term properly applies to false statements of fact that accuse a person of criminal conduct, of bei g insane, being untrustworthy and so fort t s not in any way a suggestion that we a i ging a defamation action. The reputational damages ar clearly recognized by the Florida Court. They have been recognized as se intangible damages for which a jury h 7:S y given broad discretion. On the other ha t y have to be given l%7'n 41this context, the two primary ones as ational damages are the gravity of the Ise allegations and the degree of exposure. th t is exactly what this expert is qualified parameters. o~estify about. And there's been no suggestion s to what confusion there would be. And so, therefore, we believe we have satisfied the standard, and it's your discretion regarding the admission of his testimony. And to strike a witness entirely is the most extreme remedy that could be sought in this 1 2 context, and we submit it is not appropriate and the motion should be denied. 3 THE COURT: All right, thank you. 4 Mr. Link, you have a few minutes to rebut. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I think a little bit of the confusion n the damages is there's really two standards. e standard for damages in a malicious p ion based on lack of probable cause in a c iminal action has per se damages. T e assumed, because if somebody makes gations that you are a criminal in the court and they have you arrested, then putation and your character are A i di ely impugned. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This i v . In civil it requires damages proximat y sed. And it's not a Frye analysis, it's ot a aubert analysis, it's a basic does this t tor jury and is it a 403 issue, which is if I 0 n the stand and I say there were nine million its when in fact all he did was search for defamatory terms given to him by counsel without taking into consideration was it Mr. who spoke to the press, did he do a press release, when did these -- when were the -- when did the dissemination take place, did anybody read them, MR. LINK: Very briefly, Judge. Z 7e 1 did it make any difference? 2 3 4 One of the things Mr. has told us is he has no economic damages. His law firm has made substantially more money, or himself personally, since Mr. Epstein sued him than from before. 6 7 8 9 10 11 So to say to the jury nine million hit ounds like nine million people are reading th' I believe that prejudice outweighs any, lue it might have, any relevance in this cti n, because he needs to show damages prox ly caused and not just put someone on the s talk about hits. 12 Thank you, Judge. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: O . S', was writing as we were speaking and ce in was anticipating Mr. Burling n t tate the well-known legal action that a r~uesf t o strike a witness is a drastic and extr e measure reserved only in rare Eli llti c~rrcum tances, especially where here we're dealing an expert which is otherwise qualified to a lebk. estify to what he's going to testify. And there being no Daubert or Frye analysis necessary, the Court would deny the motion. 23 24 25 I would point out that many of the issues that were raised by Mr. Link both in his written motion and orally certainly can be effectively dealt with \\ on cross-examination. But the core aspect of the Court's ruling today is that reputational damages and damages for humiliation are difficult to demonstrate to a jury, and the manner in which the plaintiff chooses to go about presenting that testimony, in this Court's view, is reasona in part to Dr. Jansen's proposed testimony. a ain, that motion is respectfully denied. O The next issue. MR. LINK: Judge, I thin t's 0 for 5. THE COURT: I don't a re. Never have and never will. I kno y it in gest, and I allowed it the las ithout a mention, but repeating it is ap opriate. MR. LI : dge, I'm sorry. It was not meant to be in late. S OLA: Your Honor, the next issue the Court relates to the plaintiff's Clement to an adverse inference instruction T?Ik. rising out of each of those circumstances where Jeffrey Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The primary objection to the entitlement to an instruction really related to the content of the instruction. a And I have handed your Honor the adverse inference instruction based on Fifth Amendment assertions that we are requesting of the Court, which I suggest to your Honor is in direct conformity with the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Baxter versus Palmigiano and also conforms with the clarification in the case o Coquina Investments versus Rothstein. Interestingly, a matter related to scheme. th C .) And those two cases toge stand for the basic principle that you ase civil liability solely upon ertion of a Fifth ASS" Amendment privileg a ;; . u if a defendant confronted ;' r with evidence wins him in the context of a civil case refuse, wer questions that are relevant that civil case, then drawing an adverb inference based upon Fifth Amendment n is not required, but is permitted. 's exactly what this instruction says. and mate Your Honor is well aware of the broad array of questions to which Mr. Epstein has refused to provide answers, and it is of particular significance that those refusals occurred in the context of efforts to obtain discovery on the claim that Mr. Epstein himself asserted. Amendment concerns, if so ww I might also point out to the Co t there is a basic principle of law relati g tp admission V by silence. Separate and apa om Fifth it accusations under circ res where they have in 8' this case not only 'g but an obligation to speak up in res seco those accusations and they fail to say 'ng, that accounts to an admission by silen confronted with He filed a lawsuit intending not to provide any discovery with respect to the claims that he made and, carrying through on that intention, refusing to provide any discovery on those claims that he made. Under those circumstances, an adverse inference instruction is particular y appropriate. o based upon those two very fundamental es, the U.S. Supreme Court recognition, the Amendment protections do not apply in the ontext of civil litigation based upon the basic principle of admissions against silence, admission of a party opponent by silence. 0 Icl?ak > We ask the Court approve this proposed instruction and permit us to comment upon Mr. Epstein's assertion of the Fifth Amendment 1 2 3 privilege in the context of this civil litigation in each context in which those assertions were made. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 So it relates to his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to the elements of the claim that he brought against El ks, it relates to his assertion of Fifth Ame nt privilege with regard to all question ing to his economic circumstances, it rel sjto his V assertion of the Fifth Amendm rivilege in every context in which he has a that privilege. 12 Thank you, sir. 13 THE COURT: 14 15 16 Mr. Scarol thereference to Florida standard jury instrugtiQn 01.11, am I going to find this there? 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 OLA: What you're going to find there, or, is a spoliation instruction. And what done is we have adopted the spoliation Instruction, which is the closest standard in jury -- closest standard jury instruction to these circumstances. That is not an adverse inference instruction based upon Fifth Amendment. No such standard jury instruction exists. 25 THE COURT: Well, I didn't think so. And thank you for that clarification. I'm surprised that there really aren't more cases that deal with this instruction in a civil context. And no Florida cases that you're aware of? MR. SCAROLA: Coquina is a Florida cas, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, it'S a Federal Ct Court case, not a Florida appellatCoprt case, which would be binding on thi All right. Counsel Epstein? MR. GOLDBERGER: et to stand. Good afternoory. a Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. Your H a general statement of the law, Mr. Scar correct. CO RT: Let me tell you where I have some i . Goldberger, with this. And Mr. Scarola O anyspeak to it as well, now that I understand its rigination. t ?h,, The first sentence I don't really have a problem with. The second sentence is where I have a problem. It says, quote, However, the protection that applies in a criminal proceeding does not apply in a civil lawsuit when a person, based upon 1 2 3 4 the Fifth Amendment, refuses to answer questions when evidence is offered against him which is relevant to the case, end quote. I don't think that's an accurate statement of the protection mechanism. 6 7 8 9 MR. GOLDBERGER: I bracketed that myse your Honor, in the instructions Mr. Scarola me. And my concern may be a little differ -n the Court. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Whether that's accurate t, I don't want this jury to be thinking e right against self-incrimination app a criminal case and, therefore, he's gu everything that they're trying to get a dv se inference on. There simply is n nnect there. I don't know why we need to anything about a criminal case in this \*ury instruction other than Mr. Epstein under 1i!\* 6 Un'ted States Constitution cannot be compelled o~rovide evidence against himself in a crimina' 0 roceeding, period. 21 22 23 24 25 And then, you know, and the guilt of a crime may not be inferred from the exercise of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that's confusing, your Honor, and it's just going to inject criminal issues into this civil trial, and I think it's just t ?k' not necessary to the instruction that Mr. Scarola is seeking that this Court give to this jury. And then the second sentence, your Honor, address, However, the protection that applies in a criminal proceeding does not apply in a civil lawsuit when a person, based on the Fifth Amendment, refuses to answer questions. I now where the Court is heading because th ires a balancing test at this point. Judge, by the way, • Honor, back in November of 2013 addresse •ery issue in an order that he entered. n 11 quote from it. This is Order on C Oar laintiff Motion to Deter e atus of Punitive Damage Discovery a p icability of Adverse Inference. And in t t o er, your Honor, your predecessor judg Judge, stated, "The counter-plaintiff, B dle I'm sorry -- "The 0 oagcer-plaintiff ' request for jury nstructions adverse inference instruction is deferred until the time of trial. And at the time of trial, upon specific analysis of the specific questions and answers, including those propounded in discovery, the Court will determine whether an adverse inference instruction will or will not be 1 given." 2 3 4 6 So I think what Judge meant in 2013 is that you can't determine what the instruction is going to be until such time as you hear the question, and then you must first do a 403 analysis. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Well, first you must determine whe it s relevant, then you have to do a 403 a then you have to decide whether under t at 03 analysis and respecting the sanctity o invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, r an adverse inference instruction a opriate. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 So for Mr. Scgso. simply ask you at this point to have a t instruction to give to this jury every based on every time Mr. Epstein invokes s F h Amendment privilege I do not beli e is a correct statement of the law. And I ld sk the Court to follow Judge order, he said I'm going to do it on a uestion-by-question basis. 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, a couple things. One is, again, presuming, without knowing, what was going through Judge mind at the time, but I would think that the likely contemplation was that by the time this case got to trial, whether it was in 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 2014, '15 and now '18, Mr. Epstein's criminal issues would have been behind him and that there was not at that particular juncture a need to rule on something that was probably potentially, at best, speculative. However, the time is now, so to speak, because we've gone through in painst detail most of those questions that the deemed relevant and that Mr. Epstein his Fifth Amendment privilege and, the efo e, the Court would find that an adverse in tion would be appropriate. 12 13 14 15 The language that fault with, particularly in th sentence, will have to be ironed out aM de t with in a way that's going to be palat 51 the Court. 16 17 18 19 You ert Xnly have the right, and it is a matt of aw in the civil context, that if you eri llir k t have an instruction provided to the jury on issue, it must be filed to preserve error. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ci Now, of course, if it was -- if it's deemed to be erroneous to give an instruction at all, then that requirement would be obviated. However, if you are seeking an order with the Court's stated intent that one will be given -- because as far as the Court is concerned, it is necessary based upon 1 2 3 4 my rulings relative to the Fifth Amendment issue that I've already reviewed -- I'll be glad to review a proposed instruction that you and your team prepared. 6 7 So at this time -- again, I'm going to give A the instruction. An instruction. The inst u tion is still up in the air in terms of the w 'ng. 8 9 10 11 I'm comfortable with actually th sentence, I'm comfortable with the paragraph. It's the second paragraph that will need s AV ce in the first anged. 12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. SCAROLA: May your Honor, becaus est a language change, k I understand - although your H r bars not articulated the concern, I ' AgEk 'n erereading that second sentence, I unders it could be of concern. The Fifth ent -- 18 19 20 21 COURT: The concern potentially is the f rk 1 et statement that protection that applies in a lel\`, riminal proceeding does not apply in a civil lawsuit. 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. I understand that. What I suggest for consideration by the Court and opposing counsel, instead of the instruction reading, "However, the protection that applies in a 1 2 3 4 criminal proceeding does not apply," it should read, "However, the prohibition against drawing an adverse inference that applies in a criminal proceeding does not apply in a civil lawsuit," et cetera. That's the part that does not apply. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 You still have your Fifth Amendment protection; however, you don't have pro against an adverse inference. That's intended to say. It's not said as rly as it should be, so I suggest that "However, the prohibition adverse inference that 8iSr proceeding does no 1 in a civil lawsuit," et cetera. anguage read, drawing an in a criminal 15 16 17 18 MR. GO B R R: Your Honor, I accept what Mr. Scarola tr ng to clarify, but I also accept your nvita ion to come up with our own instruction tirmilv thi point. 19 20 MR. SCAROLA: I just want to be sure our 21 22 23 24 i7l>Nkt_groposal is on the table. And that's what it is. THE COURT: However, the prohibition against drawing an adverse inference -- so we'll eliminate the word "protection" and substitute "prohibition against drawing an adverse inference." 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, which I believe is an 7 L and your team. But again, your invitation remains. I'll be glad to take into consideration any propose It instruction that you provide me, Mr. Go absolutely exact statement of the law. THE COURT: All right. I certainly can live with that more so than I could letting that sentence stand as it was. 0 But again, I'm ruling that ad{(ersg instruction is abundantly necessary, with uestion. And, therefore, one will be giv, But again, I will you to prepare one for the Court's co i ion. MR. GOLDBE hanks, Judge. That's obviously s o relevancy. Obviously. THE I'll put on the record for you so that where \`s no equivocation, I understand that nket objection is to giving an adverse uction at all. That is recognized, and it's verruled. However, as I said, as a substitute, my understanding of the law to be is it will be necessary now that the Court has ruled, unless you simply want to stand on your blanket objection, that an alternative instruction must be given for 1 2 the Court to consider so as to preserve further your objection. 3 4 So at this time -- again, I'm going to give the instruction. An instruction. The instruction is still up in the air in terms of the wording. 6 7 8 9 I'm comfortable with actually the firs sentence, I'm comfortable with the seco paragraph. It's the second sentence first paragraph that will need to be cha 10 11 12 13 14 15 MR. SCAROLA: May I sugg language change, your Honor, because I thirt y erstand - although your Honor ha col fl ticulated the concern, I think i ing that second sentence, I understand ho E 't uld be of concern. The Fifth Ag Amendment - - 16 17 18 19 t%') THE OU The concern potentially is the blan t sta ement that protection that applies in a cy4min proceeding does not apply in a civil it. 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. I understand that. what I suggest for consideration by the Court and opposing counsel, instead of the instruction reading, "However, the protection that applies in a criminal proceeding does not apply," it should read, "However, the prohibition against drawing an 1 2 3 adverse inference that applies in a criminal proceeding does not apply in a civil lawsuit," et cetera. That's the part that does not apply 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 You still have your Fifth Amendment protection; however, you don't have protection against an adverse inference. That's what intended to say. It's not said as clear s t should be, so I suggest that the lang ad, "However, the prohibition against adverse inference that applie a ng an criminal proceeding does not apply vil lawsuit," ACe' et cetera. 13 14 15 16 ASc MR. GOLDBERGE . o t Honor, I accept what Mr. Scarola is tryi to larify, but I also accept Acre your invita o come up with our own instruction at this 17 18 R. SCAROLA: I just want to be sure our c ;rpv p pos is on the table. And that's what it is. 19 20 21 22 ? l — THE COURT: However, the prohibition against Ls...drawing an adverse inference -- so we'll eliminate the word "protection" and substitute "prohibition against drawing an adverse inference." 23 24 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, which I believe is an absolutely exact statement of the law. 25 THE COURT: All right. I certainly can live 1 2 with that more so than I could letting that sentence stand as it was. 3 4 6 But again, your invitation remains. I'll be glad to take into consideration any proposed instruction that you provide me, Mr. Goldberger, and your team. 7 8 9 But again, I'm ruling that adverse ru tion is abundantly necessary, without ques io And, therefore, one will be given. 10 11 But again, I will invite to prepare one for the Court's considera 12 13 14 A MR. SCAROLA: You 1 7 we thank you very much for your gene u a, otment of time today. Look forward to ei you on Tuesday. 15 THE CO s my pleasure. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Aga all have done a superb job in both your written and oral presentations. I appreciate ilent argument. As I've mentioned in the C5 if I had the pleasure of dealing with ttorneys of all of your caliber each and every day, I wouldn't have the headaches that I do physically and figuratively. 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, for planning purposes, are we going to be conducting an initial screening on Tuesday, having jurors fill out the questionnaire and then returning for voir dire on Wednesday? The initial screening I would think would include hardship challenges and also questions with regard to anyone's familiarity with the underlying circumstances of this case. THE COURT: That's something that we'r oing to have to discuss, and I guess the bes e o do it is now. Take a little bit more ti Madam court reporter, are you oka with a few more minutes? THE REPORTER: Sure. THE COURT: My th S Tis that likely it will h " be necessary to pr i 'nS ily individually question the venire pane q going to have a hundred. A4. 7eYes, sir. MR. SC THE I know that will be time cons ing, but based upon the Dippolito case, and t 's h oing some parallels as far as the publicity a s7ects are concerned and the nature of the llegations and admissions that we're dealing with here, that it's incumbent upon the Court to individually question each of the initial venire members as to their knowledge of the individuals involved in this case. Those are my thoughts preliminarily. 1 MR. SCAROLA: May I make a suggestion? 2 3 4 THE COURT: Sure. Whoever is going to primarily conduct voir dire, why don't you come up to the podium so I can hear from you and you don't have to jump up and down. 6 7 8 9 MR. SCAROLA: We've proposed a juror questionnaire and I think that we're pro y ose in terms of the content of that juror questionnaire. 10 THE COURT: I haven't se . 11 12 13 MR. SCAROLA: If we' ere already, we're close in terms oh ontents of that questionnaire. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE COURT: (\<4SK h : en't seen it yet, so that's a bit of a di a age for me because this is somethin th t goes unmentioned, but certainly it is m hilosophy in most of the cases that I handle of the cases when I'm dealing with C5 xogptionally competent lawyers, once voir dire is ver, there's little that the jury hears from me. You are the ones who are going to be essentially steering this trial, and I leave it to competent, experienced attorneys when it comes to stipulations. 25 And the Fourth has reiterated that in a recent interim order relinquishing jurisdiction on an unrelated case -- a case that goes back to 1995, actually -- and emphasize in that interim order the significance of counsel's stipulation. And so I'm here to make determinations of law, rule, where necessary, but the conduct of the trial is go ng to largely depend upon lead counsel. So if you guys formulate a quest on il e of a preliminary manner that you can ag ee n, you got it. I'm more than willing to de to that. And if that is sufficient in w to satisfy the SO issue of pretrial publ' t 'knowledge of the S' circumstances, kno e f any the participants, things of that tur that are critical to the analysis, tk n t 's satisfactory to me. MR. is t t once the group is assembled, the Court deal dship issues in whichever way your Honor arily deals with hardship issues. Anyone who s not asserting a hardship for which they are seeking to be excused and anyone who does not express any knowledge with regard to Epstein or Rothstein, which I think are the two broad categories that we need to address. : Well, my suggestion, your Honor, THE COURT: I'm not as concerned with 1 2 3 Rothstein particularly now as I am, as I was - really -- I've never really been concerned with Rothstein. 4 6 7 MR. SCAROLA: From my perspective, we can limit it to any knowledge with regard to Epstein. And I would think this is the defense's prima concern as well. 8 9 THE COURT: Or Mr. The ne million hits, apparently. 10 11 12 13 14 C.) MR. SCAROLA: Well, that' ue. I think those names should be mad to the jurors. Anyone who recognizes mes and anyone who has a hardship rem be individually questioned. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 With r a question ire li l)and they are asked to fill out those e the others, they are given ques onnaires, and then they are excused for the b Ianc of the day. If someone survives individual a ue~tioning, they're given a copy of the uestionnaire, they fill that out, and they're excused for the balance of the day. 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: All right. So let me stop you there so I'm understanding. The questionnaire that you're proposing would be after the initial issues regarding knowledge of any of the participants in 1 this case? 2 3 4 MR. LINK: That's what I envisioned, your Honor. And I think Rothstein, Epstein all have to be part of that dialogue. 6 MR. SCAROLA: I don't have a problem either way. 7 8 9 10 THE COURT: That's fine. Certainl '117have the opportunity to question them furt f they say they have heard of Scott Roths ein we will be able to drill down further in at inquiry. 11 12 13 14 15 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, s one who has not heard of any of those eople and does not have a hardship fi the questionnaire, leaves with instructio to eturn the following morning. Everybody e e i ubject to individual voir dire. 16 17 18 19 20 THE I'm thinking about it the other way, nd I'm thinking the individual voir dire has tp.com at the initial point of whether or not any Cif hese people have any knowledge of the rotagonists here. 21 22 23 24 MR. SCAROLA: Well, it would. The only people who are excused are those who have no hardship concern to raise and don't know any of the three people. 25 THE COURT: But the knowledge of the people has to come first. MR. LINK: It does, your Honor. You have the sequence correct. THE COURT: Because then hardship becomes a non-issue. MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. THE COURT: Okay? It's the degree he r knowledge, if any, that will have to t with first. If they have knowledge of na ure that results in an immediate cause lenge, then we no longer have to get into a e other issues. MR. SCAROLA: But a our Honor envision two separate individual/ ires? THE COURT: MR. SC So you would want to identify everybod ho, as knowledge and everybody who is clai pg a 7iardship. c5c . fivalification ncorrect, forgive me for the late hour. COURT: Has knowledge of a nature. And if the grammar is So, yes, it would be only those who would be -- who would have knowledge that would subject them to disqualification. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: After that, I see no issue because the group. "Sdone MR. SCAROLA: I agree that needs C The bottom line is that initial screening process screening process is n who survive the ecause the ssary for them or they have come in, been vDdually questioned and they still qualify, se eople all fill out a juror me tie re they leave for the day and ed after filling out the questionnai they're ques onnaire to return the following morning. I have done it before and have had remarkable results using now Chief Judge Gerber's, then Judge Gerber here in the Circuit Court, his voir dire colloquy on hardship. It's excellent. And it is one that I've had very, very good success utilizing. And I have done it in a group. d the group setting is actually better. COURT: What are you envisioning -- what ou both envisioning on this questionnaire? MR. SCAROLA: All of the basic information that takes a long time to gather on an individual basis that we won't need to gather individually; demographic information, marital status, job history -- THE COURT: So you think it would be better 1 2 3 with 100 -- let's use 80 as a round number -- 80 people -- it would be better -- and, Mr. Link, I want your thoughts on the subject, too. 4 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT: It would be better to give them k l the questionnaire, have them fill it out in o r 443-osio at you all could evaluate this informati opposed to going through the standard ques ion aire that I have here, which is one we al with demographic information, the name, pl omicile, occupation, marital st s ouse's occupation, adult child occupa for jury service, parties to any pending pa law suits, similar criminal, A . ., knowing any e S the courtroom -- we'll basically take tha outl f the equation -- and can you and will ou be a fair juror in the case? presence and then dismiss them for the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me SCAROLA: Yes. We include all that 16 \<4;r. n rmation. We request some additional 0 iti ?6\_ nformation as well. They fill out the questionnaires, the questionnaires are gathered, multiple copies are made, the Court has one, each side has a copy or more, if they choose to order them, and we then have a chance to look at them overnight and come back the following day and focus 1 2 our voir dire on those questions that need to be asked. 3 4 THE COURT: I'd like to reserve my right to ask the fairness question, so I don't want that included in the questionnaire. 6 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. 7 8 9 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just procedurally, r Honor, I just did this in a case rece i this circuit, and the procedure request d b Mr. Scarola is close to what we did. 11 12 13 14 15 16 After the individual ough, they A survived the cut, they lied out the questionnaire, act 1 wn in the jury assembly room. They col to the questionnaires for us, they gave u pies overnight, and we came back the next it worked pretty well. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT: Okay. So that will be fine. So 11 do on Tuesday is the 100 people that be assembled -- we'll be doing jury selection so report there at 9:30 on Tuesday morning -- we will go ahead and individually speak to the jurors outside the presence of the remainder. I don't want to do it with the noise. As I said, that would be headache producing within minutes. 11A, MR. SCAROLA: Easiest is just go into the jury room. THE COURT: I think that's the best way to do it. And you'll individually question each of the panel after I have introduced everyone, aft r I've had the opportunity to make them as comf bl as possible and to explain what we're do why - want to hint at anything -- some may nize the name right off the bat -- but to them that we have agreed that we wig ion each of you individually so as out only preliminary information con ni the matter at hand, and leave it pr t ch at that. not why we're doing it, because I And he e'll go over with them if they have any owle ge of Mr. , Mr. Epstein or the hst 'n matter. And I think that's the better to do it. Obviously, the reason for my doing it, even though it has not come under attack or objection, is because I don't want the entire 100 people to be tainted by one person spouting something that may be of the nature that could arise here. So to avoid that operation -- and, you know, it should be pointed out and always keep in mind the cost to summon people to jury service is extraordinarily high, and so we don't want to waste the taxpayers' money in that respect as well. All right. So again, I want to thank and commend each of you for your presentations o ay, all that participated either directly o ir ctly in the presentation of all of your Thank you to our courtroom personn 1, hank you to our staff attorney, who's bee isting me. And I wish you all a pleasant ev, MS. ROCKENBACH: t or, you almost got SCS" away. I just have o bsed order on the motion S ( 0 to stay that yo Ho r denied earlier, can S AlZsme approach. v a copy to Mr. Scarola just a moment a if CO RT: Yes. What you can do tomorrow on tantive motions -- I'll be at the Bench Bar C otfference and you have my permission to track me own. Our schedules are posted, so you'll know where I'll be. But I'll be doing the civil presentations during the afternoon. There's two of them. So I'll be able to be reached there. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you again. Have a great rest of the week. Thank you again to our courtroom\ personnel. We'll be in recess. (Thereupon at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was\ concluded.) NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ### CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PALM BEACH. I, Elaine V. Registered Professional Reporter, State of Florida at large, do hereby cer ify that I was authorized to and did report the abov hearing at the time and place herein stated, an t it is a true and correct transcription of my st notes taken during said hearing. I further certify that I am n a q ney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a r lative or employee of any attorney or counsel of connected with the action, nor am I financia nterested in the action. The foregoing certi c n of this transcript does not apply to any repro t of the same by any means unless under the dime co trol and/or direction of the certifying repor . IN WITNESS hand this 9th day F, I have hereunto set my h. 2018. Elaine V. illiams Notary Pub n and for the State of Florida My Co ssi Expires 03/27/21 My CQ ssion #GG 72248 ORDERED a Is Southern District of Florida on 91) 1 O ![](_page_257_Picture_2.jpeg) c417?Valeia, Raymond B. Ray. Judge United States Bankruptcy Court ### UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COU SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLO Fort Lauderdale Divisio www.11sb.uscourts. IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. . 09-34791-RBR ER 11 ### AGREED ORDER- LUNG HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AMENDED RDER (DE 1068) AND TO COMPEL JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO PAY FOR THE.ERODUCTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO HI UESTS FILED B INTERESTED PARTY LEHRMAN P.L. The S fo Rchef From Amended Order (D.E. #1068) and to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay f ction of All Documents in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party =, e, Weissing,S., Fistos & Lehrman, P.L a"), was adequately resolved by agreement of the parties as follows. The law firm of Burnett, P.A., will print a hard copy of all of the documents contained on the discs with numbers added, and will provide a set of copied, stamped documents to the Special MI and an identical set to CASE NO.: 09-34791-RBR who will use same to create its privilege log. 1= - agrees to prepare that portion of the privilege log relating to emails on or before December 15, 2010, with the remaining portion due thirty days from the date of this order, subject to other courtaa= will not retain any copies of the documents contained on the discs provided to it, nor shall any im caes,or copies of said documents be retained in the memory of = = co ielould it be determined that=a or Epstein retained images or copies of subj ct documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to awa y ons in favor of=, Brad or his client. As such, the Motion for Relief is deemed m e hearing set on the Motion for Relief [D.E. 1146] set for November 30, 2010%c reby cancelled. The court reserves jurisdiction to tax fees and costs related to the preparation of the privilege log upon filing of a proper motion and hearing thereon. t e, # \# Submitted by: Seth Lehrman, Esq. , JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel.: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 sethri/Matlitoiustice.com Seth Lehrman, Esq. who is directed to serve this Order to all parties of interest and to file a Certificate of Service.