Draft: efta02767344

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.

<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	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.
<b>State Court</b>	November 23, 2010	Epstein filed his amended privilege log.
<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	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.
<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	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.
<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	December 22, 2010	Bankruptcy court entered an order extending the time for production of the privilege log until January 31, 2011. DE 1260.
<b>State Court</b>	January 25, 2011	FJWEFL produced 8,408 pages of non-privileged documents to Epstein.
<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	January 26, 2011	FJWEFL served a privilege log, and the sufficiency of that log was challenged by Epstein in the bankruptcy court. DE 1442.
<b>State Court</b>	February 8, 2011	Epstein filed a Motion to Compel/Motion to Determine if Privilege Claims are Waived for failure to provide a privilege log.
<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	February 15, 2011	FJWEFL filed a privilege log in the Bankruptcy Court.

<b>Bankruptcy Court</b>	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
<b>State Court</b>	March 30, 2011	Judge [REDACTED] entered an order staying the subpoena to the trustee.
<b>State Court</b>	July 12, 2011	Epstein's Motion for Leave to Use Attorneys Eyes Only Documents produced under confidentiality agreement.
<b>State Court</b>	July 14, 2011	[REDACTED] protective order granted. Epstein request for all emails is overbroad and not necessarily calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
<b>State Court</b>	March 9, 2012	Epstein Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order relating to the subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee.
<b>State Court</b>	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.
<b>State Court</b>	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.
<b>State Court</b>	April 11, 2012	Epstein Motion to Compel production of documents from [REDACTED] and for Sanctions.
<b>State Court</b>	May 7, 2012	[REDACTED] produces 163 pages of additional responsive documents in compliance with April 10, 2012 Order
<b>State Court</b>	May 8, 2012	Order requiring better Privilege Log
<b>State Court</b>	May 15, 2012	[REDACTED] Motion for Clarification on Discovery Issues to clarify the scope of the May 8, 2012 Order.

<b>State Court</b>	May 15, 2012	Epstein Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions
<b>State Court</b>	May 30, 2012	Epstein Amended Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions
<b>State Court</b>	August 3, 2012	Hearing on Motion for Clarification on Discovery Issues.
<b>State Court</b>	August 14, 2012	Scarola letter to Judge [REDACTED] enclosing proposed Order on Motion for Clarification on Discovery Issues. <i>Provided before Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against [REDACTED]</i>
<b>State Court</b>	August 16, 2012	Epstein voluntarily dismisses case against Edwards without prejudice.
<b>State Court</b>	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 <Za..."an hese third parties. Epstein thereafter made no effort to seek production of these e ntify "in a proper ever challenged the facts that did not file the response requested by Jud Cro The issue of the privilege log never came up again until March 2018 when, on the trial, Epstein sought to introduce the emails at issue here. As this Court noted at thp4rch 2 18 hearing, it was too late for Epstein to challenge the absence of the response in¶

also makes specific challenges to the April 2012 privilege log and purports to explain why it is legally deficient (Supp., pp.13-14). However, again, this argument is too little, and much too late. The time for Epstein to challenge the privilege log has long since passed. The parties have been litigating this case for years and and this Court have done everything within their power to ensure it is tried. Epstein's latest effort to derail trial by raising issues which¶

privilege here (Supp., p.16). In support of this, Epstein argues summarily that the crime-f ton precludes claim of id* laim, he filed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in Drumm o., . v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP, 885 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2018) as suppleme n9I 'ty. This argument is frivolous.¶

should have been raised more than 6 years ago must be rejected. Despite Epstein's protestations to the contrary, discovery in this nearly decade old case is closed.¶

5. Epstein's Belated Claims that there is no privilege fails.¶

Epstein claims that there are several viable challenges to claims of attorneyclient privilege (Supplement pp.15-16). Again, as made clear above, the time for hallenging privilege claims has long since passed. In fact, Epstein did challenge iency of privilege log and that challenge was ultimately rejected with the of one subset of inquiries. As to that issue, Epstein had nearly 6 years to raise allure to file the response required by Judge Crowe in his August 2012 order. H no so. He has thus waived the right to raise these challenges now.¶

Pursuant to the "crime ud ception," no attorney-client privilege exists where a client seeks or obtains a lawyer* *n the commission of a crime or in the planning of future criminal activity. See §90 a claim of Jack 4Xa). o establish the crime-fraud exception, the "party seeking to defeat y-client privilege on crime-fraud grounds must first put on anima the crime-fraud exception applies." First Union Nat. Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(emphasis added). In other words, "the moving party must make out a prima facie case that the party asserting the attorney-client privilege employed counsel or sought a lawyer's advice in order to commit, or in an attempt to commit, some crime or fraud." Id. (citing Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).¶

In establishing a prima facie case, the disputed documents themselves cannot be used for this purpose, unless the party asserting the privilege consents. Turney, 824 So.2d at 183. AS the First District has explained:¶

Absent agreement otherwise, the trial judge should not examine written communications between attorney and client, unless the party seeking to establish the crime-fraud exception adduces competent evidence, apart from the disp ted documents, that would lead a reasonable person to believe that such an exam! ton would reveal that the communications were part of an effort to perpe crime or fraud.¶

Even if in camera inspection makes it appear that M Scrimefraud exception applies, a full evidentiary hearing is necessary (unless aived by the proponent of the privilege), before confidential communications between attorney and client can be disclosed to another party. communications appear on their face to be privileged or the privilege is oth tse established, the party seeking disclosure bears the burden of proving not.¶

Id. at 183-84 (internal citations omitted). These pr V ' 'iS, coal questions must be established by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. ( s A( kr ng §90.105(1)).¶

In Drummond, the Eleventh Ci ' ' ...e affi ed the District Court's decision that the party opposing a claim of work-product ' ad established a prima facie case that the exception applied. Here, on the other han ps iri has presented absolutely no evidence to establish a prima facie case that the crriime-f ception applies here. Epstein relies solely on innuendo, stemming from his mischaeCrizati ns of the contents of the materials in question, to imply that the exception a re; however, as discussed above, the disputed documents themselves cannot be use lish a prima facie case that the crime-fraud exception applies. This Court may not even review the materials in camera without this showing by Epstein. Epstein has fallen far short here of establishing application of the crime-fraud exception.¶

6. Epstein should not be rewarded for violating the bankruptcy court order requiring that neither he nor his attorney maintain the emails in question.¶

Epstein belatedly renewed his interest in the privileged documents only after his current counsel, Link & Rockenbach, obtained copies of the documents from his predecessor counsel, As noted above, was tasked by the bankruptcy court with copying and stamping the thousands of RRA emails it sought to be produced. However wler and Epstein were expressly prohibited by the bankruptcy court from retai tt cop of the documents after turning over copies to the special and Iaty firm. violated that order by retaining a disk containing the emails, 'eh jt recently sent to Link & Rockenbach.¶

This Court has already imposed the followin trictions on Epstein, as to the emails:¶

The Co ted:¶

• Barred Epstein from "referring any of those records as it relates to the documents that were gath or from any other source that would have included those at were subject of Judge Ray's order" (3/18 Tr, pp.75- 76); and
• Prohibit$ EpstlLin from making any use of the 724 late-disclosed exhibits (3/8/18 Tr.,

As a general blanket order I would simply say that all attorneys who have or are representing Mr. Epstein shall be subject to this order of confidentiality, of sealing and of non-dissemination of any such information that Is contemplated in any of the documents that are part of the umbrella order of Judge Ray. And that would include all of the exhibits that we spoke about today and that have been filed as a matter of record.¶

(3/8/18 Tr., p.79).¶

Epstein not only violated the bankruptcy court order by retaining the emails, he violated this Court's rulings by referring to the content of the emails and relying upon gross mischaractcrizations of the content of those emails to support its arguments.¶

Epstein cannot be permitted to benefit from his own misconduct. This Court should affirm its prior decision to preclude Epstein from using or otherwise referring to the illic y obtained emails. It should certainly not reward Epstein's misconduct by allowing him lat y list the privileged emails as exhibits and reopen discovery issues that Epstein a ears ago.¶

8lic, p has ever determined the relevancy, s i to or waiver of the emails identified on privilege log ..." (Supp., p. The ny there is of course that it was Epstein who failed to follow through on his on ge to the privilege log which was filed in this Court more than six years ago. Thus, is own fault that this issue was never completely resolved by the Court because he a ed his challenges to the privilege log years ago. Epstein begins his request for in camera ic, Ni, Vy noting that "no court or special¶

Epstein c a quot from counsel from the March 2018 hearing to support a e claim that E has agreed to an in-camera review (Supp., p.17). However, Epstein takes this quote ntext. The quote in question was from a portion of the hearing discussing the dissemination of the RRA emails to Conrad & Scherer as part of the joint prosecution agreement, discussed above. Counsel explained:¶

• 7. In camera review is not necessary based upon the Court's nation that Epstein was not permitted to add exhibits long after the tim dments to the exhibit lists had passed, especially where the documents in uestion had been in the possession of Epstein's counsel for many years.

Well, there were direct negotiations in which I was a personal participant with the lawyers for Conrad Scherer, and an agreement was reached with the lawyers for Conrad Scherer because, as we have told every judge before whom we have appeared with regard to these matters, we're not attempting to hide anything. You want to conduct an in-camera inspection, we want you to conduct an in-camera inspection because it will confirm that we're not attempting to hide anything.¶

(3/8/18 Tr. p.15). Thus, the comment in question was made to make clear that historically, has always been ready, able, and willing to produce the emails identified in the privilege log for in camera inspection if required by a court. did not waive his claim raised expressly in his Motion to Strike and argued at the hearing that Epstein had raised the issue too late, violation of multiple court orders and thus the documents could not be used by hir ril s of any privilege. Accordingly, maintained, it was not necessary for the conduct an incamera review or engage in any more discussion as to the privileged f the documents. See (3/8/18 Tr. p.5).¶

maintains now that an in camera in si,cc n not warranted because Epstein should be precluded from using the privileged e exhibits, as this Court has previously ruled raised by ME) to reconsider its the privilege claims raised by next step in the privilege analys ri due to his untimely listing of them as is Court agrees (over all of the objections on that matter and seeks to consider the merits of agrees that in camera inspection is an appropriate¶

For th ( S expressed above, Epstein's Motion for Court to Declare Relevance and Non-Privi of Documents, and Request for Additional Limited Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing Appointment of Special should be denied.¶

CONCLUSION¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished to all counsel on the attached service list, by email, on July 26, 2018.¶

/kbt¶

Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 eservice®searcylaw.com jsx@searcylaw.com and BURLINGTON & ROCICE Courthouse Commons/S 444 West Railroad Ave West Palm Beach, EL 3 (561) 721-0400 Attorneys for pmb@FL14/ w.com njs®F 11 w.com kb pe teLaw.com A ASA¶

in M. Burlington ILIP M. BURLINGTON orida Bar No. 285862¶

By:/s/ Nichole J. Segal NICHOLE J. SEGAL Florida Bar No. 41232¶

SERVICE LIST¶

Epstein v. Rothsteita¶

Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶

Scott J. Link, Esq.¶

Kara B. Rockenbach, Esq.¶

LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A.¶

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 930¶

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401¶

(561) 847-4408¶

Scott@linkrocklaw.com¶

Kara@linkrocklaw.com¶

Troy@linkrocklaw.com¶

Eservice@linkrocklaw.com¶

Tina@linkrocklaw.com¶

Tanya@linkrocIdaw.com¶

Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Mark Nurik, Esq.¶

LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. NURIK¶

1 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 700¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

(954) 745-5849¶

marc@nuriklaw.com¶

Attorneys for Scott Rothstein¶

Paul G. Cassell, Esq.¶

S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF¶

AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UT¶

383 S. University St.¶

Salt Lake City, UT 8 12¶

cassellp®law.utah¶

Attorney for In ne .M., E.W.,¶

and JANE DO¶

Jack Goldberger, Esq.¶

ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER¶

& WEISS, P.A.¶

250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400¶

West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

(561) 659-8300¶

jgoldbergen@agwpa.co¶

smahoney®agwpa.c¶

Attorneys for Jeffre Eps i¶

Bradley J. Ed rd Esq.¶

FARMS' , EISSING,¶

EDW STOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.¶

Feu rdale, FL 33301¶

425 s Ave., Ste. 2¶

\ i -2820¶

3.Wile@pathtojustice.com¶

d®pathtojustice.com¶

Jay Howell, Esq.¶

JAY HOWELL & ASSOCIATES¶

644 Cesery Blvd. Suite 250¶

Jacksonville, FL 32211¶

jay@jayhowell.com¶

Attorney for Interveners L.M., E.W.,¶

and JANE DOE¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 502009CA040000XXXXX¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
[REDACTED], individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

VOLUME I¶

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS¶

DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, December 5th, 2017
TIME: 10:02 a.m. - 4:35 p.m.
PLACE: 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10C
West Palm Beach, Florida
BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge¶

This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were reported by:¶

Sonja D. [REDACTED]
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 471-2995¶

THE COURT: Good morning. Welcome back. All right. As I understand it, you want to start with the issue of the motion to amend the answer and affirmative defenses. Is that accurate?¶

MR. SCAROLA: That is, sir. Yes. THE COURT: I will be glad to do that. I have reviewed the materials from both sides. Thank you for that.¶

MR. LINK: Whenever you are ready, Judge.¶

THE COURT: Whenever you are ready, go ahead, sir.¶

MR. LINK: Good morning, Your Honor. Scott Link on behalf of the plaintiff. It is our motion for leave to amend the affirmative defenses. You have to put that in context, Your Honor.¶

That is, why do we need affirmative defenses that sound in defamation, and they do. The reason they do is because the counter-plaintiff in this case has made it very clear that they are trying the allegations in the statements in the complaint.¶

1 APPEARANCES:
2 For Plaintiff/Counter Defendant:
3 LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A.
4 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
5 By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE
6 By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE
7 For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff:
8 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART &
9 SHIPLEY, P.A.
10 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
11 West Palm Beach, FL 33409
12 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
13 By DAVID P. VITALE JR., ESQUIRE
14
15 For Jeffrey Epstein:
16 ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
17 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
By JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
18
19 For Jeffrey Epstein:
20 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
21 575 Lexington Avenue
22 New York, NY 10022
23 By DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE
24
25¶

1 At the last hearing, Mr. Scarola handed
2 this out and showed us very clearly what
3 their plan is. And this is their plan.
4 They believe that we're trying the factual
5 allegations of the complaint to see whether
6 they were true or false.
7 As this Court knows, in the recent
8 Supreme Court case dealing with this case,
9 the Supreme Court made it very clear that
10 there is a narrow exception to the
11 litigation privilege. That exception is for
12 malicious prosecution. But the Supreme
13 Court told us in that opinion, Your Honor --
14 I will share it with the Court -- the
15 Supreme Court told us in that opinion, Your
16 Honor -- gave us a roadmap.
17 The Supreme Court told us.
18 THE COURT: That Debrincat,
19 D-E-B-R-I-N-C-A-T versus Fischer --
20 MR. LINK: That's correct, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: -- from the Florida Supreme
22 Court, So.3d cite that the parties are well
23 familiar with.
24 MR. LINK: If you look at this case,
25 you will see that the Supreme Court made it¶

very clear and gave us a roadmap. The 2 Supreme Court said, really simply -- and it 3 makes sense that If the litigation 4 privilege applied to the elements of a malicious prosecution action, there you: 6 never be a malicious prosecution action.¶

7 Plus the Supreme Court reaffirmed that 8 every statement made in the proceeding 9 itself -- the allegations of the complaint, the statements of witnesses, the statements of lawyers, and the statements of the :7 judges -- are absolutely protected. That's why the court lays out the elements. And 4 the elements the court lays out talk about '5 only the actual initiation of the lawsuit.¶

:6 So if you turn, Your Honor, to page two of three, the court sets forth the elements. :8 We will talk about these elements. The '9 Supreme Court really give us clarity.¶

20 At the bottom of the page two, it talks about an original criminal or civil judicial 22 proceeding -- an original proceeding. That proceeding, according to the Supreme Court, 24 when You read the Fourth OCR division that's 25 cited, is the tiling, it's the commencement,¶

3 4 5 6 7 it's the action. If you think about where from, it comes from the cri you think about the cri issuing a warrant, eta investigation, filing a in and of iteel reputation. cause Injury to yo'.'¶

9 SO Court tells us the act ,0 that protected by the litigation he initiation of a lawsuit.¶

:2 ou look at the probable cause :3 it says there was an absence of ble cause for the original proceeding.¶

It doesn't say claim. It doesn't :6 allegation. It doesn't say statement.¶

So Mr. Sterols tells us three times during this hearing on the 29th that what he plans to do -- what he plans to do -- 20 reading from this transcript at page 02, the first thing Your Honor needs to determine is the issue we have been focusing on, what are 23 the factual allegations that we claim were 24. maliciously prosecuted. And then he goes to 25 our complaint. :a :9 21¶

According to the Supreme Court, our complaint is protected. We cannot commit defamation. Me cannot commit any action that's based on wrongful words. The only thing that's available is a claim for malicious prosecution focused on the initiation of the suit.¶

On the last page of this opinion from the Supreme Court, the court tells us this: 20 The filing of a lawsuit and the joining of a 31 defendant is the commencement of a judicial 32 proceeding.¶

33 It then says, reall antly, an 34 action for malicious tion ich it 15 based as a matter of 1 on causing the 2.1 commencement of judicial 39 proceeding we need focus on.¶

18 SO i we der trying the statements and it the alleg ns f the complaint, if that'. 20 are doing, then we have to hive 22 ve defenses that protect us from a 22 44d on allegation, in the complaint.¶

the last thing I want to ShOw the 4 curt, on Friday after our hearing, I too, the deposition of Mr. ' expert.¶

2\¶

May I approach? During the deposition 2 of Dr. Jansen -- if you turn to page three, four and five, Your Honor, you will see what their expert wants to do.¶

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]¶

<b>A</b>
a.m 1:16 61:17,17 95:16	<b>accomplished</b> 112:10,13	159:8 160:3 168:10 201:9,11	151:5,12 152:16 195:19	177:20 <b>Air</b> 215:1
AB 189:11	<b>account</b> 35:8 111:10 111:25 133:16 214:12	201:17 236:12 <b>AD</b> 179:2,4 180:7 <b>add</b> 24:13 30:13,19 104:12	<b>affirmative</b> 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	<b>airplane</b> 65:21,22 66:4 79:2 156:7 156:11 164:11 <b>airplanes</b> 72:12 202:16 208:25 <b>akin</b> 150:10 151:22 <b>Alamo</b> 211:11 <b>Alan</b> 213:2 <b>albeit</b> 27:22 78:5 <b>Alberto</b> 199:9 <b>Alexandra</b> 212:8 216:15 <b>align</b> 80:20 <b>aligns</b> 196:22 <b>allegation</b> 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 <b>allegations</b> 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 <b>allege</b> 12:17 27:17 <b>alleged</b> 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 <b>allegedly</b> 40:22 51:12 216:23 230:19 <b>alleges</b> 67:6 <b>alleging</b> 27:16 <b>allow</b> 10:11 11:5 28:15 29:9,11 30:5 52:24 75:11 102:9 106:15 110:18 154:12 <b>allowed</b> 8:25 9:2,24 10:13 14:23 27:8 99:14 106:2 117:8 136:18 182:23,25 <b>allowing</b> 18:24 28:23,24 146:13
	<b>accomplished</b> 112:10,13	<b>additional</b> 21:2 206:6 <b>Additionally</b> 49:13 <b>address</b> 55:10 57:6 104:17 105:12 107:13 108:25 123:12 148:8 156:6,9 <b>addressed</b> 13:16,17 13:18,20 19:12 28:25 49:11 53:7 128:21 192:3 215:16 <b>addresses</b> 50:9 <b>adequately</b> 44:25 <b>adjudging</b> 178:5 <b>adjudicate</b> 128:16 <b>adjusting</b> 96:13 <b>Adler</b> 65:8 116:4 <b>admissible</b> 65:12 72:8 120:6,17 186:8,9 <b>admission</b> 163:22 171:6 189:5 <b>admissions</b> 189:24 192:8 223:17,17 233:23 <b>admit</b> 23:15 58:9 <b>admitted</b> 59:18,18 145:14 224:21 233:20 <b>admittedly</b> 113:24 <b>admitting</b> 224:23 <b>adopt</b> 158:14 <b>adopting</b> 131:24 148:17 <b>advantage</b> 120:8 <b>adverse</b> 110:19,21 125:5 163:23 178:12 234:6 <b>advertises</b> 37:8 <b>advice</b> 10:6,15 <b>advisory</b> 146:8 186:3,4 <b>advocates</b> 100:16 <b>advocating</b> 233:3 <b>affect</b> 190:3 <b>affidavit</b> 162:4 195:22 209:23 <b>affidavits</b> 138:15	<b>affirmatively</b> 10:15 18:18 <b>afforded</b> 38:12 47:11 61:9 <b>afield</b> 80:3 141:15 <b>aforesaid</b> 1:20 95:20 <b>afternoon</b> 55:18,20 55:24 91:19 92:9 92:23 93:14 <b>AG</b> 189:9 <b>age</b> 78:4 102:15 166:6,6 167:3 <b>agency</b> 206:18 <b>agents</b> 129:2 <b>ago</b> 116:22 173:6 <b>agree</b> 33:6 57:15 86:9,13 143:23 144:5 170:17 193:8,22 197:13 209:5 <b>agreed</b> 102:16 103:23 183:9 <b>agreeing</b> 50:19 <b>agreement</b> 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 <b>agreements</b> 211:10 229:25 230:23 235:9 <b>ahead</b> 3:13 93:1 96:6 102:23 109:25 160:23	<b>airplane</b> 65:21,22 66:4 79:2 156:7 156:11 164:11 <b>airplanes</b> 72:12 202:16 208:25 <b>akin</b> 150:10 151:22 <b>Alamo</b> 211:11 <b>Alan</b> 213:2 <b>albeit</b> 27:22 78:5 <b>Alberto</b> 199:9 <b>Alexandra</b> 212:8 216:15 <b>align</b> 80:20 <b>aligns</b> 196:22 <b>allegation</b> 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 <b>allegations</b> 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 <b>allege</b> 12:17 27:17 <b>alleged</b> 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 <b>allegedly</b> 40:22 51:12 216:23 230:19 <b>alleges</b> 67:6 <b>alleging</b> 27:16 <b>allow</b> 10:11 11:5 28:15 29:9,11 30:5 52:24 75:11 102:9 106:15 110:18 154:12 <b>allowed</b> 8:25 9:2,24 10:13 14:23 27:8 99:14 106:2 117:8 136:18 182:23,25 <b>allowing</b> 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	<b>banking</b> 204:24	29:22 30:5,7	20:13 124:2,5	<b>built</b> 22:23 52:20
219:10 220:25	<b>bankruptcy</b> 229:19	31:25 37:1 41:4	139:2 190:16	54:3 113:17
<b>attributable</b> 51:15	<b>banks</b> 164:5	45:23 56:21 65:15	208:12 213:10	<b>built-in</b> 52:3,18
<b>augment</b> 60:6	<b>bar</b> 15:15,18 48:10	86:17,22 107:22	<b>Brad's</b> 213:15	<b>bulk</b> 35:13
<b>Australian</b> 2:12	<b>BARNHART</b> 2:7	111:25 136:9,23	1:8 32:7	<b>burden</b> 21:1,8
<b>authenticity</b> 233:14	<b>barred</b> 27:19 50:12	138:9 146:18	46:6 65:4,6,14,18	118:5 123:16,19
<b>authoritatively</b>	<b>Barry</b> 205:17	148:6 155:24	67:4,7,15 69:22	123:22 142:1,2
102:21	<b>based</b> 7:4,15,22	158:21 159:9	72:2,15 95:8	143:20 145:3
<b>authority</b> 8:23	11:10 14:24,25	164:2 172:23	106:24,25 152:22	<b>burdens</b> 21:11
<b>authorized</b> 29:22	17:2 21:3 26:20	175:8 176:9	155:6,24 156:21	<b>Burlington</b> 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
<b>automatic</b> 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	<b>believed</b> 22:7	191:22 207:6,7	30:10 33:24 35:10
<b>automatically</b>	218:16	<b>Believers.org</b>	<b>branch</b> 22:11,11	40:15,19 41:24
159:15	<b>baseless</b> 12:23 21:4	212:21	<b>branches</b> 13:10	51:10 56:20,23
<b>automobile</b> 118:12	207:5	<b>believes</b> 121:2 223:9	<b>breadth</b> 219:7	57:2
<b>available</b> 7:5 93:8	<b>bases</b> 65:3	<b>BellSouth</b> 162:8	<b>break</b> 54:10 61:12	<b>Burlington's</b> 47:3
169:18,21 221:17	<b>basic</b> 38:14	<b>Belohiavek</b> 207:19	91:12,13 136:2,8	<b>business</b> 17:7 78:9
<b>Ave</b> 2:12	<b>basing</b> 62:22	<b>bench</b> 149:22	<b>Breakers</b> 204:25	226:10
<b>Avenue</b> 2:16	<b>basis</b> 21:14 30:8	<b>benefit</b> 234:6	<b>brevity</b> 148:14	<b>businesses</b> 59:9
<b>avoid</b> 17:3 50:15	37:3 64:16 65:11	<b>BERARD</b> 2:4	<b>bridge</b> 44:18	<b>busy</b> 169:4
121:17 125:8	72:3,14 79:20	<b>best</b> 56:8 93:6,13	<b>brief</b> 24:18 51:10
<b>avoidance</b> 49:25	115:20 116:14	129:23 170:5	112:10	<b>C-A-D</b> 204:3
52:8 53:1 54:5	117:2 119:4	225:11	<b>briefly</b> 78:18 86:5	<b>C.W</b> 98:5 102:6
<b>avoided</b> 33:4 109:23	121:13 142:20	<b>better</b> 8:23 56:1	<b>bright-line</b> 140:11	<b>CAD</b> 204:3
124:15	145:25 147:13,17	<b>beyond</b> 39:1,13	<b>bring</b> 9:24 11:19	<b>calculated</b> 70:7 72:7
<b>award</b> 25:3 44:22	147:25 148:7	109:22 201:10	17:18 18:24 41:12	225:13
<b>aware</b> 58:21 79:19	154:23 162:15	<b>Bible</b> 212:21,23	42:24 87:1,8	<b>call</b> 41:15 110:4,5
113:2 131:2	171:14 172:9	<b>bicycles</b> 204:24	96:25 110:23	143:14 145:14
158:23 206:25	190:25 192:11,16	<b>big</b> 42:10	131:8 138:17	<b>called</b> 17:1 18:19
220:19	192:22 193:1	<b>Bill</b> 76:9	149:22 156:19	82:5 92:9 109:17
<b>axiom</b> 129:21	194:4 230:7	<b>billing</b> 227:16	174:19 201:11	117:1 127:4,8
	<b>battle</b> 121:21	<b>Billionaire</b> 232:6	231:17	168:6 169:3
<b>B</b>	<b>Beach</b> 1:2,17,22,23	<b>binder</b> 122:3 129:7	<b>bringing</b> 33:11 91:2	206:21
<b>B</b> 62:5 150:20	1:23 2:3,4,8,8,13	<b>bit</b> 30:14 68:4 104:9	107:11 108:18	<b>calling</b> 183:6
<b>back</b> 3:2 12:1 15:2	95:2,17,22,23,23	138:7 141:15	123:1 132:17	<b>calls</b> 204:3
32:4 56:1,14	168:18 171:20	<b>black</b> 45:20 87:9	180:9 185:3	<b>camera</b> 223:20
61:15 72:24 74:15	173:25 197:24	<b>blueprint</b> 73:10	189:17 193:24	<b>car</b> 211:11,17
91:2,16 94:20	204:8 205:17	<b>blur</b> 51:5	201:19	<b>care</b> 96:7 102:11
114:5 135:17,24	206:16 209:25	<b>board</b> 22:5,6 138:22	<b>broad</b> 85:16	229:15
140:2 141:16	211:14 217:17,19	<b>boats</b> 195:16	<b>broadly</b> 49:5 190:7	<b>carefully</b> 43:2 102:2
146:7,10,14 174:7	218:1,19 231:22	<b>boiling</b> 35:10	<b>brought</b> 23:5 27:14	182:7
186:13 236:8	238:5	<b>bold</b> 45:19	36:3 48:17 51:16	<b>carried</b> 123:7
237:3	<b>beauty</b> 204:22	<b>bolster</b> 70:8	52:18 76:8 80:15	<b>carries</b> 210:12
<b>backing</b> 190:22	<b>befits</b> 83:5	<b>bona</b> 17:24 226:22	227:7	<b>carry</b> 123:22
<b>backup</b> 55:6	<b>beginning</b> 45:12	227:7	<b>bono</b> 190:25	151:25
<b>backwards</b> 184:21	<b>begins</b> 213:12	<b>boon</b> 190:25	<b>book</b> 156:6	<b>cars</b> 195:16
184:21	<b>begun</b> 116:17	<b>booking</b> 203:5	<b>books</b> 156:7,10,10	<b>carve</b> 170:6
<b>bad</b> 91:2 150:15	27:11 33:13 73:17	<b>bookstore</b> 204:24	<b>bootstrap</b> 20:2	<b>carved</b> 90:19
233:18,18	80:16 98:24 134:2	<b>bootstrap</b> 20:2	<b>bottom</b> 5:20 68:9	<b>carve</b> 170:6
<b>badly</b> 129:16	154:24 186:21	<b>bottom</b> 5:20 68:9	179:15	<b>carved</b> 90:19
233:4	187:9 219:3	<b>Boulevard</b> 1:23 2:3	2:8 95:23	<b>case</b> 1:3 3:22 4:8,8
<b>bait</b> 76:14	<b>belief</b> 69:4 72:14	<b>Boulevard</b> 1:23 2:3	157:18 170:7	4:24 8:24 11:13
<b>balanced</b> 18:23	103:21 138:1	<b>bound</b> 159:12	171:5 187:8,12,16	13:13 14:3 15:3,8
<b>balancing</b> 114:10	173:12	<b>bounty</b> 156:18	188:5 196:24	16:9 17:13,14,15
133:18	<b>beliefs</b> 71:2	<b>Brad</b> 12:13 20:10	201:13,14 226:24	18:5,7,8,15,19
<b>balls</b> 92:7	<b>believe</b> 4:4 11:6			19:5,18,21 20:4
<b>bank</b> 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	<b>celebrities</b> 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	<b>center</b> 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	<b>chilling</b> 88:19	234:15
41:2,3,8,17,25	53:13 59:2 71:5,6	<b>certain</b> 98:15	<b>choice</b> 110:15	<b>claimed</b> 69:5 85:18
42:6 43:19,20	73:1 75:4 76:13	100:11 103:25	114:24 134:14,15	<b>claiming</b> 48:22
47:6 48:10,18,19	76:14 77:25 80:22	117:20 152:2	<b>choices</b> 132:16	113:16 116:10
49:4,11 52:12,17	81:5,7 83:17,22	175:12 179:12	<b>choose</b> 115:4	171:14
53:16 58:24 64:20	100:14 103:16	<b>certainly</b> 14:21	<b>chooses</b> 203:16	<b>claims</b> 16:16,21
66:15 73:10,11,19	118:12 121:9,9	29:25 35:17 51:4	<b>chose</b> 134:11	17:19 19:8,13
74:14 75:5,8,12	128:4 143:13,15	51:8 56:5 58:21	<b>chosen</b> 132:18	24:3,7 29:23
77:19 78:1 80:4	145:1,5,12,12	107:21 112:11	<b>Cingular</b> 162:9	32:12,17,22 35:4
81:14 83:22 87:2	147:19 153:8	129:22 170:18	<b>circle</b> 227:25	35:20 49:21,23
87:23 88:1,15,16	158:23 159:23	234:1	<b>CIRCUIT</b> 1:1,1	50:11,12,13 51:11
88:16,20,22 95:3	174:19 178:5	<b>CERTIFICATE</b> 238:1	95:1,1	53:15 54:24 71:17
96:16,23 97:14	183:15 184:13,25	<b>certified</b> 18:2	<b>circulating</b> 124:4	72:16 78:5 80:12
98:1,7 99:10,21	185:3,4,7,12	179:19	<b>circumstance</b> 90:9	80:15,19 82:20
102:6 103:13,17	188:22 189:7,13	<b>certify</b> 238:7	93:15 118:19	83:3 85:15 101:11
106:9,16,19 107:1	189:13 190:15	<b>cetera</b> 177:14	227:8	106:11 109:24
109:12,15,16	191:21 192:10,19	<b>challenge</b> 24:9	<b>circumstances</b> 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	<b>challenges</b> 24:11	<b>citations</b> 135:2	139:1,3,9 140:12
114:22 116:1,3	230:10	<b>challenging</b> 28:10	<b>cite</b> 4:22 13:7 16:25	140:12 144:14
117:6 118:14	<b>cassell</b> 191:2	185:3 207:2	18:17 21:12	147:5,9,24 154:13
119:11,13,14	<b>catch-all</b> 218:23	<b>chance</b> 56:7	18:17 21:12	154:23 155:12,25
120:3,24 121:7,16	<b>categorical</b> 15:22	<b>change</b> 26:18 60:7	<b>cited</b> 5:25 13:3 18:5	157:3 158:2,3,6
123:6 124:8,12	9:23 16:13 17:2	<b>change</b> 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	<b>changed</b> 45:24	28:19 29:2 59:6	178:18 192:6
127:2,4,7,16,22	29:21 30:7 31:13	<b>changes</b> 209:19	135:4,8 213:12	206:19,20,21
128:16 129:10,16	31:18,21 34:11	<b>changing</b> 21:10	<b>citing</b> 127:7 135:3	208:11 220:18
129:20 130:17	40:24 41:6,21	<b>character</b> 150:16	<b>civil</b> 5:21 16:7 19:23	229:18 230:11,14
131:5 132:8,19,25	42:16 43:6,11	<b>character</b> 23:18	42:4,8,21 54:23	230:18 234:4
133:8 134:10	45:9,12,22 46:3,4	<b>characterizing</b> 50:17	75:17 81:9 87:1	<b>clarification</b> 85:10
136:12 137:4	46:7,9,12,14 61:7	<b>charge</b> 118:16	112:20 117:21	85:24
138:19 139:21	67:15 74:23 80:8	<b>charge</b> 177:2	119:13,14 131:20	<b>clarify</b> 86:14 99:20
140:4 141:22	90:16,25 91:1	<b>charges</b> 32:8 101:12	137:17,25 138:25	181:20 184:22
142:9 143:7,21	<b>cause</b> 1:19 6:7,12,14	<b>charges</b> 50:22	152:23,24 179:16	<b>clarity</b> 5:19
144:3 145:18,22	139:14,18 140:1	<b>charges</b> 3:2 101:12	188:22 191:4,24	<b>cleaning</b> 204:24
146:9 147:20	143:1 145:20	102:25 103:4	192:19	<b>clear</b> 3:23 4:9 5:1
150:13,21 151:4,8	146:4 151:5,11	<b>chase</b> 149:6	<b>claim</b> 6:15,23 7:5,22	16:1 19:19 21:21
153:13 154:2	152:15 153:13	<b>check</b> 215:25	12:15 15:12,16	25:4 49:19 83:1
158:22 167:14	155:14,24 170:2	<b>checked</b> 177:1	16:4,23 20:10	83:25 101:6 106:7
171:16 172:12	172:25 173:7,11	<b>cherrypicking</b> 146:2	25:9 26:2,4 32:7	140:3 169:16
173:20 174:4,14	173:16 185:1	<b>chief</b> 205:16 206:25	32:25 34:3,5,14	183:12 184:3,16
177:2 180:12,13	191:8 194:4	<b>chief</b> 207:1 209:18	45:2,16,18 48:15	<b>clearly</b> 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	<b>cause/malicious</b> 145:17	<b>child</b> 11:16 66:16	66:8 71:13 80:10	19:9 30:6 33:25
203:7 206:1	<b>caused</b> 8:15 26:14	<b>chief's</b> 206:19	80:18 81:9,9 87:8	36:18 72:9 75:8
209:23 213:24	44:11 45:2,16	<b>child</b> 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	<b>causing</b> 7:15	178:21 179:7,8,13	116:14 121:2,20	166:10 178:3,8,16
221:16,24 222:9	<b>caution</b> 155:20	180:8 233:4	123:10 131:7	190:9 223:13
224:12,14 229:6	<b>cautiously</b> 99:7	<b>children</b> 66:5,9,20	132:19 133:25	234:12
<b>cases</b> 13:8,9 16:25	<b>caveat</b> 61:3 161:18	66:23 71:24 79:1	134:5 140:7,20	<b>clerked</b> 173:4
17:10 18:9,16,17	225:19	79:18 120:19	149:4 165:2	<b>client</b> 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	<b>comfort</b> 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	<b>conclude</b> 43:13	<b>considerations</b>
74:24 75:14 76:11	138:16	72:14 74:3 82:21	178:10	13:16
82:4 99:15 119:23	<b>comfortable</b> 59:14	84:4,14,25 85:13	<b>concluded</b> 14:13	<b>considered</b> 221:4
146:21 151:13	102:24 166:14	87:21 107:12	65:4 237:6	<b>considering</b> 13:1
153:25 163:10	<b>coming</b> 43:5 59:7	109:21 115:6,22	<b>concludes</b> 25:11	113:4
167:3 171:18,19	107:7,8 111:22	129:4 136:20	<b>conclusion</b> 15:10	<b>consistent</b> 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	<b>commenced</b> 16:9	139:13,15,22	145:20 155:10	<b>conspiracy</b> 17:18
199:12 207:23	42:23 74:13	142:4 145:23	166:3	<b>constitute</b> 34:13
211:13 220:16	<b>commencement</b>	146:3 162:21	<b>conclusive</b> 120:2	50:1 51:17 52:8
224:11,19 226:23	5:25 7:11,16	184:4,8 206:22	<b>conclusively</b> 117:9	53:4 85:17
233:18,22	<b>commences</b> 87:11	<b>complaints</b> 156:21	124:7	<b>constituted</b> 28:4
<b>client's</b> 64:18,23	<b>comment</b> 86:4	177:22 186:21	<b>concrete</b> 190:3	<b>Constitution</b> 49:16
74:3 76:24 77:6	102:18 115:15	192:23	<b>concurrent</b> 117:23	49:17 52:14,16
82:3 146:17 161:2	134:13 176:4	<b>complete</b> 75:2	118:10,11	<b>constitutional</b> 10:20
161:25 167:16	206:16 210:8	<b>completed</b> 228:16	<b>concurring</b> 22:21	24:9,11 52:20
<b>clients</b> 20:17 37:16	<b>commentary</b> 83:6	<b>completely</b> 14:13	<b>condemnation</b>	<b>constitutionally</b>
64:23 65:24 70:24	<b>comments</b> 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	<b>conditions</b> 177:10	<b>constructive</b> 174:8
77:12 80:16 134:2	<b>commission</b> 66:17	97:11 129:1	<b>conduct</b> 21:17	<b>constructively</b> 78:3
167:4 179:3	212:17	<b>compliance</b> 208:2	33:18 67:16 70:15	131:2 154:12
<b>close</b> 194:21	<b>commit</b> 7:2,3	<b>complication</b> 128:6	72:3 79:20 80:23	<b>construed</b> 35:19
<b>close-out</b> 214:22	120:15 234:14	<b>complies</b> 98:16	155:7 157:17,21	51:6 119:14 130:8
<b>closely</b> 33:21 195:4	<b>committing</b> 99:14	<b>comply</b> 101:22	183:18	<b>contact</b> 157:18
196:22	<b>common-sense</b>	<b>component</b> 137:18	<b>conducted</b> 217:14	177:14 201:22
<b>club</b> 145:13	37:17	137:22,24 156:4	<b>confession</b> 49:24	<b>contacting</b> 39:25
<b>co-counsel</b> 93:17	<b>commonly</b> 79:14	206:1	52:8,25 54:4	<b>contacts</b> 204:12
<b>co-exist</b> 108:21	<b>community</b> 20:8	<b>comprehend</b> 31:9	<b>confidence</b> 112:9	<b>contained</b> 99:23
<b>coalesce</b> 108:21	201:25	<b>comprise</b> 222:10	230:8	<b>containing</b> 69:10
<b>code</b> 150:8,19 151:1	<b>companies</b> 69:15	<b>comprises</b> 226:6	<b>confined</b> 88:16	<b>contemplate</b> 84:9
151:2	205:2	<b>compromising</b>	<b>confirm</b> 60:7	<b>contemplated</b> 87:11
<b>cogent</b> 179:24	<b>company</b> 200:7	190:21	<b>confirmed</b> 78:25	<b>contend</b> 46:2
<b>coin</b> 144:9	<b>compared</b> 143:16	<b>concealed</b> 116:16	<b>confirming</b> 54:7	165:24,24 232:23
<b>colloquy</b> 175:7	<b>compares</b> 232:11	<b>concede</b> 58:1	<b>confusing</b> 31:3	<b>contending</b> 227:6
179:1,4 200:19,23	<b>compel</b> 94:10	<b>conceded</b> 25:20	209:15	<b>contention</b> 154:18
<b>colorable</b> 24:23	163:18 164:1	54:3 76:23 83:9	<b>confusion</b> 136:17	<b>contents</b> 199:2
<b>column</b> 180:1	230:22 235:25	<b>concedes</b> 75:24	225:1 233:13	<b>contested</b> 60:5
<b>combination</b> 133:12	<b>compelling</b> 128:23	76:21	<b>congratulate</b> 114:2	143:13
<b>come</b> 12:1 24:22	132:3	<b>conceding</b> 33:2,2	<b>conjunction</b> 136:14	<b>context</b> 3:18 22:13
29:8 37:10 43:7	<b>compensate</b> 44:25	<b>conceivable</b> 83:12	136:16	23:3 24:6,15 25:3
44:18 61:15 104:6	<b>compensatory</b>	159:3	<b>conjuring</b> 87:6	56:10 60:12,20
114:21 117:15	26:14	<b>conceivably</b> 35:19	<b>connected</b> 89:19,23	61:7 79:5 131:20
141:12 145:4,9,15	<b>competing</b> 159:22	<b>conceive</b> 36:2	89:25 90:8 194:2	161:20 162:3
169:6 184:7 185:6	<b>compilation</b> 170:11	<b>concern</b> 14:22 21:7	<b>connecting</b> 138:3	163:20 172:5
199:23 201:7	224:17	21:15,18 22:2,14	<b>connection</b> 37:25	193:18 228:2
208:5 226:1	<b>compiled</b> 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	<b>continuation</b> 45:4
<b>comedy</b> 204:25	<b>complain</b> 185:4	234:18	<b>consent</b> 78:4	45:18,22 46:5,15
<b>comes</b> 6:3 17:11	<b>complained</b> 45:5	<b>concerned</b> 34:16	<b>consequences</b>	55:21 89:5 140:20
43:12 56:9 60:5	<b>complaint</b> 3:25 4:5	48:8 52:1,9 78:1	132:15 133:21	<b>continue</b> 43:8 46:4
79:6 100:19	5:9 6:6,25 7:2,19	84:17 92:1 128:13	<b>conserving</b> 57:5	46:13 82:18 96:1
101:10 143:20	7:22 8:15,20 9:3	132:23 168:5	<b>consider</b> 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	<b>continued</b> 16:9,10
203:3,3 225:3	31:19 37:5 40:23	<b>concerning</b> 97:5	<b>consideration</b> 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

<b>continues</b> 68:8	132:20 138:8,21	69:23 70:16 72:17	182:4 183:22	76:3 108:22
<b>continuing</b> 90:15	155:16 207:18	72:20 73:4,12	185:24 187:1,7,25	<b>created</b> 17:18
228:21	216:17	74:22 75:2,6 77:7	188:4,10,14,16,25	<b>creating</b> 189:18
<b>Contract</b> 211:15	<b>count</b> 11:9 19:4	77:14,22 78:18	189:4,11,20 190:9	<b>creativity</b> 35:7
<b>contractor</b> 199:11	21:1 42:9 177:3	79:3,12,24 81:2	192:14 193:17	<b>credibility</b> 141:2
<b>contractual</b> 230:8	179:5	81:17,23 82:17,23	194:17 196:12	175:22 195:12
<b>contradicts</b> 72:13	<b>counter-</b> 110:5	82:24 84:1,5,16	197:9,10,14,21	<b>credit</b> 177:8
<b>contrary</b> 18:16 50:3	110:6	85:1,11,21 86:3,6	198:4,8,13,19	<b>crime</b> 75:6 97:14,22
53:9		86:7,12 87:3,23	199:7,14,15,19,21	97:23 108:13
<b>Contrast</b> 44:13	<b>counter-plaintiff</b>	88:1,1,13 89:8	199:22 200:9,13	119:10,15 120:2
<b>contributing</b> 155:9	3:22 36:4 107:1	90:20,23 91:2,9	200:16 201:20	120:23 133:8
<b>contributions</b>		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
<b>control</b> 25:19,21	<b>counter-pleading</b>	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
<b>controversy</b> 187:12	<b>counts</b> 18:1,2	100:7 102:12,22	207:8,14 209:5,13	<b>crimes</b> 37:21 120:7
<b>convenience</b> 103:6	104:22	103:8,17 104:5,18	209:15 210:2,11	120:9,15 150:14
<b>convert</b> 18:6 19:3	<b>County</b> 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
<b>converted</b> 20:8	238:5	107:5,9 108:23	212:11,12,23	<b>criminal</b> 5:21 6:3,4
<b>convicted</b> 17:21	<b>couple</b> 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
<b>conviction</b> 175:3,7	<b>course</b> 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
<b>convictions</b> 218:4	163:25 169:16	118:17 119:12,19	220:11 222:2,21	109:11 117:23
<b>convincing</b> 49:19	<b>court</b> 1:1 3:1,7,12	122:2,21 124:21	222:25 223:11	118:11 120:6
<b>coordinated</b> 192:11	4:7,8,9,13,14,15	125:15 126:5,11	225:6,15,25	121:7,8,22,25
<b>copies</b> 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
<b>copy</b> 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
<b>corner</b> 205:1	18:20 20:2,18,20	141:9,20 143:17	238:1	173:24,24 174:1,5
<b>cornerstones</b> 99:4	22:12 23:14 24:5	143:23 146:5,14	<b>Court's</b> 51:22 54:8	175:7 177:22
<b>corporations</b>	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
<b>correct</b> 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	<b>critical</b> 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
<b>correctly</b> 91:9	44:17 45:18,25	162:22 163:13	221:19 223:2	153:7
<b>corresponding</b>	46:19,24 47:5,10	164:10,13,23	228:2	<b>criticism</b> 115:16
118:13	47:25 48:2,3,7,12	165:4,16 166:14	<b>courthouse</b> 201:16	<b>criticize</b> 134:13
<b>corroborated</b>	49:3 50:6,18 51:3	166:19,21,24	<b>courtroom</b> 77:25	<b>criticized</b> 135:10
161:16	51:8 52:9 53:2,6	167:5,18,25	83:5 89:16,25	<b>crystal</b> 19:18
<b>corroborative</b>	53:18,22 54:12	168:21 170:3	90:10 184:2	<b>cull</b> 224:20 225:12
207:11	55:1,15,20 56:5	171:1,13 172:13	185:25 201:14	<b>culled</b> 220:1 221:6
<b>costly</b> 124:14	57:14 58:16 60:3	172:21 173:5,19	<b>courts</b> 15:14 59:24	223:21 224:10
<b>counsel</b> 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	<b>culpable</b> 166:1
57:13 60:15 70:17	63:17,21 64:1,4,7	176:23 177:16	<b>covered</b> 97:6 164:5	<b>custodian</b> 162:8
94:6 105:7 122:24	65:1 66:14 67:22	179:9 180:7,11,15	<b>covers</b> 120:12	<b>cutting</b> 135:21
129:9,20 130:25	68:1,3,16 69:1,17	181:3,11,15 182:2	<b>create</b> 25:23 39:3	<b>CVRA</b> 97:3,7,14,21

98:1 106:9 111:8 111:18 125:14 215:11 220:18	<b>D</b> <b>D</b> 1:22 95:22 238:7 238:16 <b>D-E-B-R-I-N-C-...</b> 4:19 <b>D3</b> 69:9,13 <b>daily</b> 147:13 <b>damage</b> 19:3 34:14 42:12 44:1,11 45:1 46:6 83:23 108:8 165:2 205:14 <b>damaged</b> 113:9,10 <b>damages</b> 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 <b>danger</b> 81:3 82:7 233:12 <b>DARREN</b> 2:16,17 <b>data</b> 69:25 <b>date</b> 1:16 92:12 95:16 132:8 <b>dated</b> 158:20 205:21 209:12 212:9 213:2 216:1 216:2 238:13 <b>Daubert</b> 58:25 59:2 59:3 <b>daughter-in-law</b> 92:12 <b>DAVID</b> 2:9 <b>day</b> 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 <b>days</b> 96:10 116:3 216:10 219:9 221:7,9 224:19 225:22,23 226:4,9 226:10,14 <b>DCA</b> 5:24 90:21,22	<b>dead</b> 15:5 16:2 178:20 <b>deal</b> 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 <b>dealing</b> 4:8 10:21 54:14 60:1 88:17 107:19 134:24 189:23 208:12 221:5 223:14,15 <b>deals</b> 36:21 <b>dealt</b> 230:25 <b>Debbie</b> 175:9 <b>Debrincat</b> 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 <b>December</b> 1:16 87:21 95:16 115:8 115:22 129:12,17 129:18 132:8 172:21 238:13 <b>decide</b> 41:14 74:10 126:18 142:15,24 <b>decided</b> 90:21 133:11 <b>decision</b> 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 <b>decision-making</b> 144:7 <b>decisional</b> 52:19 <b>decisions</b> 108:11 174:21 191:21,22 <b>declined</b> 227:12 <b>Dee</b> 187:11 <b>Deeds</b> 164:10,11 <b>deeper</b> 19:7 <b>defamation</b> 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 <b>defamatory</b> 9:17 17:3 22:17 37:2 73:25 193:20 <b>defaming</b> 8:6,7,11 8:15,20 9:1 <b>defaming-words</b> 12:5 <b>defend</b> 10:15 26:10 32:6 110:10,11 114:5,16 116:23 116:24 125:3,4 182:22 227:12 <b>defendant</b> 2:2 7:11 23:15 32:24 42:15 44:20 87:13 150:21 192:24 220:23 <b>Defendant/Count...</b> 2:6 <b>defendants</b> 110:9 130:5 <b>Defendants/Count...</b> 1:9 95:9 <b>defended</b> 130:23 <b>defending</b> 10:9 110:8 147:7 <b>defense</b> 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 <b>defenses</b> 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 <b>defer</b> 153:4 179:22 180:19 193:2 200:2 204:2 214:8 229:24 <b>deferred</b> 181:12 186:8 232:2 <b>deferring</b> 166:15 167:1 <b>defined</b> 18:21 43:2 69:22 83:20 <b>definition</b> 173:20 <b>definitive</b> 218:9 <b>defrauded</b> 69:15 200:8 <b>degree</b> 123:21 177:4 177:5 208:13,16 228:11 230:15 <b>delay</b> 100:9 123:15 123:17 124:11 133:2 <b>delaying</b> 121:19 <b>delight</b> 61:5 <b>deliver</b> 131:9 <b>Deliveries</b> 204:18 <b>delivery</b> 204:23 <b>demonstrate</b> 8:14 31:20 40:24 139:16 147:4 <b>denial</b> 14:19 49:24 56:25 <b>denied</b> 126:12 135:8 186:10 <b>denies</b> 134:19 <b>DENNEY</b> 2:7 <b>Dennison</b> 197:3 <b>Dennison's</b> 197:3 <b>deny</b> 13:21 26:20 76:22 124:18 <b>denying</b> 75:9 201:4 <b>department</b> 197:24 204:8 205:17 206:17 209:25,25 218:1,19 231:22 <b>depending</b> 153:1 188:19 189:20,22 <b>depends</b> 45:6 179:9 <b>depicting</b> 231:10 <b>deposed</b> 70:17,20 <b>deposing</b> 214:1 <b>deposition</b> 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 <b>depositions</b> 66:25 70:6 71:5 147:18 208:20 <b>deprived</b> 24:16 <b>Dershowitz</b> 214:1 <b>Dershowitz's</b> 213:2 213:23 <b>describe</b> 93:7 <b>described</b> 191:8 197:2 210:19 221:22 225:19 <b>description</b> 161:5 <b>descriptions</b> 161:13 <b>designated</b> 68:6 <b>designation</b> 177:11 177:18 197:17 <b>designed</b> 11:5 18:22 114:18 <b>desire</b> 132:1 <b>despite</b> 19:20 125:17,18 159:24 224:13 <b>detail</b> 51:1 53:8 135:2 <b>detailed</b> 135:13 161:13 <b>Detective</b> 218:20 <b>determination</b> 15:6 42:18 57:21 58:8 74:18 127:17 137:10 143:25 144:17 169:25 178:17 230:13 <b>determine</b> 6:21 74:22 142:14 146:4 186:6 192:17 <b>determined</b> 142:25 <b>determining</b> 113:4 <b>developed</b> 121:10 179:24 <b>develops</b> 231:17 <b>devoted</b> 228:24 <b>devoting</b> 229:2 <b>difference</b> 29:18 38:19 192:12 <b>different</b> 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 <b>differently</b> 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

<b>emphasize</b> 81:12	120:8 121:5,17	232:24 233:4	141:25 152:4	71:17
<b>emphasized</b> 33:24	122:8,24 125:2,22	<b>equivocating</b>	164:4 233:15	<b>exists</b> 33:6 58:9
132:21 134:8	125:24 126:14	181:21,23	<b>examples</b> 39:5	148:7
<b>employ</b> 205:10	129:4,9,9,19	<b>equivocation</b> 169:4	62:13 85:18 134:3	<b>exonerating</b> 124:2
<b>employed</b> 213:10	130:25 132:20	182:5	<b>excellent</b> 94:14	<b>expanded</b> 65:9
<b>employment</b> 151:24	133:25 134:3,11	<b>error</b> 209:15	<b>excepted</b> 73:24	<b>expect</b> 93:10 211:10
152:3,5 213:15	138:6,9 140:18	<b>escape</b> 191:3,5	<b>exception</b> 4:10,11	220:23
<b>encloses</b> 209:23	144:15 147:3,19	<b>especially</b> 28:13	90:14,14 195:7	<b>expected</b> 100:7
<b>encountered</b> 113:20	149:4 153:2,19	<b>espoused</b> 50:4	234:10	<b>expecting</b> 93:11
<b>ended</b> 128:9	154:18 155:8,22	<b>ESQUIRE</b> 2:4,5,9,9	<b>exceptional</b> 91:7	<b>expeditious</b> 60:18
<b>ends</b> 101:24	156:1,8 157:23,25	2:13,17	<b>excerpts</b> 67:11	<b>expend</b> 26:10
<b>enforcement</b> 156:16	158:5 159:7 165:1	<b>essence</b> 35:11	215:20	<b>experience</b> 94:13
196:5 217:14	165:19 169:22,24	168:15	<b>excess</b> 163:12	101:10 128:12
<b>engage</b> 12:24	170:19,20 171:15	<b>essential</b> 35:9	<b>excessive</b> 168:11	<b>experienced</b> 123:17
<b>engaged</b> 65:14	172:10 176:7,17	<b>essentially</b> 17:17	<b>excuse</b> 19:11 20:19	<b>expert</b> 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
<b>engages</b> 20:6	182:15,22 183:8	60:1 138:15 183:1	102:12 115:12	89:2 143:14
<b>engaging</b> 157:20	187:21 190:12,19	<b>establish</b> 41:23	<b>executed</b> 161:2	145:10 193:20
<b>enquote</b> 71:16	191:25 192:24	98:10 147:24	<b>executive</b> 13:10	197:4
<b>ensuring</b> 58:22	193:4 194:20	<b>established</b> 24:20	22:11	<b>expert's</b> 33:13 51:1
<b>entailed</b> 131:3	195:17,20,23	26:25 52:4 53:10	<b>exemplar</b> 108:20	<b>experts</b> 14:17 19:17
<b>enter</b> 111:9 132:24	200:5 201:23,24	198:7	201:9	141:2
<b>entered</b> 201:22	203:11 205:24	<b>estate</b> 17:17	<b>exemplars</b> 63:11	<b>explain</b> 27:2 65:19
219:15	206:23,24 207:6,9	<b>estimate</b> 101:2	<b>exempted</b> 9:13,19	78:22 136:24
<b>Entertainment</b>	208:12,14,16	<b>et</b> 177:14	<b>exemption</b> 47:12	203:25 211:8
204:25	214:19 215:18	<b>ethical</b> 208:2	90:17,19	<b>explained</b> 12:19
<b>enthusiasm</b> 125:23	217:18 218:4	<b>evaluation</b> 198:24	<b>exercise</b> 29:9 160:23	125:15 174:25
<b>entire</b> 73:14 85:14	219:10,15 220:21	<b>eve</b> 14:12 117:4	<b>exercising</b> 34:12	<b>explaining</b> 138:15
<b>entirely</b> 25:23 26:7	220:24 221:13	<b>event</b> 166:12	208:14,17	<b>explanation</b> 14:9
26:18 49:10 53:14	224:13 227:11	<b>eventually</b> 163:16	<b>exhibit</b> 56:3,4 57:12	26:21
84:20 169:21	229:18,21 230:1	<b>evidence</b> 39:16	57:23 60:5 62:4	<b>exploitation</b> 80:4
<b>entirety</b> 224:22	230:16 232:6,10	44:24 45:2 49:20	62:11,15,25 63:23	<b>expose</b> 191:25
<b>entitled</b> 133:4	234:2 235:1	52:11 58:7 65:12	63:24 64:15 73:14	<b>exposure</b> 121:8,22
172:12	<b>Epstein's</b> 21:17	66:15,19 67:10,13	84:11 149:11	121:25 122:10
<b>entries</b> 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
<b>entry</b> 159:15	64:10 69:7 70:18	127:3,19 135:17	194:10 199:2	<b>expressed</b> 14:22
<b>enumerated</b> 98:15	70:24 71:11,13	140:23 141:4,23	200:7 204:7	104:3
<b>Epstein</b> 1:5 2:11,15	76:13 81:21 83:14	146:7,11 150:8,13	207:21 217:6,21	<b>expressly</b> 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	<b>extended</b> 225:23
32:14,17,22,25	110:14 136:15	179:20 183:13	233:16	<b>extent</b> 83:15 85:25
34:11 38:1,2 39:6	144:1,7 150:4	186:6 208:15	<b>exhibits</b> 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	<b>evidenced</b> 127:14	73:15,20 77:1	<b>extermination</b>
70:1 71:23 72:11	175:3 176:25	<b>evidencing</b> 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	<b>extort</b> 190:20
83:6,9,24 84:6,8	194:23 195:3,11	<b>evidentiary</b> 56:14	161:19 173:21	<b>extra</b> 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	<b>exactly</b> 45:15 58:14	224:16	<b>extracurricular</b>
98:16,18 99:1	204:12 205:13	86:13 97:9 119:19	<b>exist</b> 76:5 160:5	157:15
103:22 106:12	206:8 207:17	120:18 222:13	<b>existed</b> 46:8 74:12	<b>extraordinarily</b>
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	<b>examination</b> 197:7	130:16 151:12	<b>extraordinary</b>
109:5,17 110:15	216:23 217:14	<b>example</b> 11:8,15	201:5	158:11
114:4,15,23	218:13 219:4	19:11 34:4 59:4	<b>existence</b> 74:21	<b>extreme</b> 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	<b>equivalent</b> 232:12	118:12 133:23	<b>existing</b> 27:19 52:21	<b>extremely</b> 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
<b>F</b> 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	<b>Firth</b> 109:9 <b>Fischer</b> 4:19 <b>fit</b> 35:11 100:15 160:11 <b>fits</b> 100:11 <b>five</b> 8:3 14:3 61:15 91:15 93:19,22 116:11 143:4 218:18 <b>fix</b> 186:16 <b>FL</b> 123:2,4,8,13 95:23 <b>flavor</b> 145:22 <b>flew</b> 71:13 <b>flexibility</b> 221:25 <b>flight</b> 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 <b>flights</b> 70:1,23 <b>Florida</b> 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 <b>Florida's</b> 27:4 44:4 <b>flow</b> 115:1 <b>flown</b> 71:11 <b>fluid</b> 59:25 <b>focus</b> 7:17 9:22 12:3 32:9 33:10 42:2 45:6 75:3 158:3 <b>focused</b> 7:6 45:8 138:18 158:2 183:18 236:17 <b>focuses</b> 42:4 45:16 86:23 <b>focusing</b> 6:22 54:23 65:10 155:4 <b>folders</b> 208:8 <b>folks</b> 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 <b>falsity</b> 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 <b>familiar</b> 4:23 104:10 172:7 <b>familiarize</b> 56:10 <b>families</b> 59:10 104:9 <b>family</b> 17:15,16,20 17:20 <b>famous</b> 70:2 71:10 <b>fantasy</b> 76:3 <b>far</b> 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 <b>farther</b> 125:19 <b>fashion</b> 28:9 60:18 107:13 137:3 155:18 <b>fast</b> 125:18 <b>favor</b> 17:24 124:8 <b>favorable</b> 119:10	fifteen 227:15 <b>FIFTEENTH</b> 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 <b>fight</b> 125:7,9 130:12 <b>fighting</b> 17:17 80:11 <b>figure</b> 19:14,24 20:8 20:11 21:25 36:22 37:7 38:3,22 39:23 40:8 49:7 171:2 <b>figures</b> 69:12 <b>file</b> 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 <b>finality</b> 105:24 133:4 <b>financial</b> 113:15 230:15 <b>find</b> 44:14,20,22 52:2 60:18 133:1 138:11 141:8,9 196:14 197:1 208:22 <b>finding</b> 53:8 122:22 140:16 168:2 199:19 <b>finds</b> 48:7 49:3 53:2 133:5 <b>fine</b> 51:6 164:13 185:25 203:18 219:19 225:16 <b>finish</b> 146:13 <b>firm</b> 20:13 65:8 75:20,22 88:21 128:7 183:5,20 205:11 <b>firmer</b> 107:22 <b>first</b> 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	<b>flights</b> 70:1,23 <b>Florida</b> 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 <b>Florida's</b> 27:4 44:4 <b>flow</b> 115:1 <b>flown</b> 71:11 <b>fluid</b> 59:25 <b>focus</b> 7:17 9:22 12:3 32:9 33:10 42:2 45:6 75:3 158:3 <b>focused</b> 7:6 45:8 138:18 158:2 183:18 236:17 <b>focuses</b> 42:4 45:16 86:23 <b>focusing</b> 6:22 54:23 65:10 155:4 <b>folders</b> 208:8 <b>folks</b> 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

<b>happening</b> 92:13 155:9 156:13	<b>higher</b> 21:1,8 <b>highlighted</b> 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 <b>identifies</b> 57:18 179:1 <b>identify</b> 54:17,19 178:1 197:16 203:20 <b>identifying</b> 147:25 <b>ignore</b> 218:23 <b>ignored</b> 83:13 <b>II</b> 95:12 <b>illegal</b> 8:9 <b>illicit</b> 70:4 <b>image</b> 39:3 <b>imagine</b> 109:20 171:19 206:4 219:20 <b>immunity</b> 38:12 89:20 <b>impact</b> 123:18 168:3 169:24 205:8 <b>impacted</b> 157:17 <b>impacts</b> 123:20 <b>imparted</b> 180:22 <b>impeach</b> 175:20 <b>impeachment</b> 175:13 <b>implemented</b> 233:7 <b>implicate</b> 150:7 165:10,11 <b>implicates</b> 175:12 <b>implicating</b> 109:10 <b>implication</b> 178:12 <b>implosion</b> 116:3 128:7 <b>importance</b> 34:23 <b>important</b> 43:22 73:22 96:21 106:13 132:13,14 136:10 138:5 155:13 171:9 183:23 187:5 <b>importantly</b> 7:13 78:2 <b>impose</b> 236:10 <b>impossible</b> 194:21 <b>impression</b> 33:25 51:9 186:1 <b>improper</b> 53:4 <b>improvement</b> 228:20 <b>inability</b> 31:8 <b>inadequate</b> 24:24 <b>inadmissible</b> 150:14 <b>inadvertent</b> 104:16	165:25 166:4 <b>inapplicable</b> 48:25 49:10 <b>inappropriate</b> 196:10 <b>inappropriately</b> 70:5 <b>inception</b> 131:8 <b>incident</b> 158:8 197:24 <b>incidentally</b> 157:6 <b>include</b> 16:11,12 65:9 122:13 147:11,15 <b>included</b> 67:20 72:13 144:24 190:14 192:8 <b>including</b> 19:21 66:4,20 69:22 83:19,20 126:9 128:13 161:12 177:10 208:12 <b>incredibly</b> 173:22 <b>incriminator</b> 80:2 <b>incumbent</b> 224:15 <b>independent</b> 74:4 78:25 132:16 157:3 <b>independently</b> 190:25 231:4 <b>indeterminate</b> 111:3 113:1 <b>indicate</b> 55:16 60:21 146:20 201:3 <b>indicated</b> 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 <b>indicates</b> 157:10 <b>indicating</b> 177:6 201:2 <b>indication</b> 58:6 <b>indirectly</b> 48:20 81:15 <b>individual</b> 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
<b>happening</b> 92:13 155:9 156:13	<b>higher</b> 21:1,8 <b>highlighted</b> 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 <b>highly</b> 207:4 224:25 234:14 <b>Highway</b> 1:17 95:17 <b>hired</b> 199:12 <b>hits</b> 194:7 <b>Hoffman</b> 127:8 <b>hold</b> 20:5 85:1 88:13 128:14 <b>holding</b> 15:18 <b>hole</b> 35:12 <b>holiday</b> 221:8 225:24 <b>home</b> 157:16 161:2 161:25 162:16 167:9,10,11,16 195:3,11 217:15 231:6 <b>homes</b> 162:25 <b>homework</b> 43:7 <b>honestly</b> 165:12 <b>Honor</b> 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 <b>identifies</b> 57:18 179:1 <b>identify</b> 54:17,19 178:1 197:16 203:20 <b>identifying</b> 147:25 <b>ignore</b> 218:23 <b>ignored</b> 83:13 <b>II</b> 95:12 <b>illegal</b> 8:9 <b>illicit</b> 70:4 <b>image</b> 39:3 <b>imagine</b> 109:20 171:19 206:4 219:20 <b>immunity</b> 38:12 89:20 <b>impact</b> 123:18 168:3 169:24 205:8 <b>impacted</b> 157:17 <b>impacts</b> 123:20 <b>imparted</b> 180:22 <b>impeach</b> 175:20 <b>impeachment</b> 175:13 <b>implemented</b> 233:7 <b>implicate</b> 150:7 165:10,11 <b>implicates</b> 175:12 <b>implicating</b> 109:10 <b>implication</b> 178:12 <b>implosion</b> 116:3 128:7 <b>importance</b> 34:23 <b>important</b> 43:22 73:22 96:21 106:13 132:13,14 136:10 138:5 155:13 171:9 183:23 187:5 <b>importantly</b> 7:13 78:2 <b>impose</b> 236:10 <b>impossible</b> 194:21 <b>impression</b> 33:25 51:9 186:1 <b>improper</b> 53:4 <b>improvement</b> 228:20 <b>inability</b> 31:8 <b>inadequate</b> 24:24 <b>inadmissible</b> 150:14 <b>inadvertent</b> 104:16	165:25 166:4 <b>inapplicable</b> 48:25 49:10 <b>inappropriate</b> 196:10 <b>inappropriately</b> 70:5 <b>inception</b> 131:8 <b>incident</b> 158:8 197:24 <b>incidentally</b> 157:6 <b>include</b> 16:11,12 65:9 122:13 147:11,15 <b>included</b> 67:20 72:13 144:24 190:14 192:8 <b>including</b> 19:21 66:4,20 69:22 83:19,20 126:9 128:13 161:12 177:10 208:12 <b>incredibly</b> 173:22 <b>incriminator</b> 80:2 <b>incumbent</b> 224:15 <b>independent</b> 74:4 78:25 132:16 157:3 <b>independently</b> 190:25 231:4 <b>indeterminate</b> 111:3 113:1 <b>indicate</b> 55:16 60:21 146:20 201:3 <b>indicated</b> 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 <b>indicates</b> 157:10 <b>indicating</b> 177:6 201:2 <b>indication</b> 58:6 <b>indirectly</b> 48:20 81:15 <b>individual</b> 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

<b>individually</b> 1:8,8 95:8,8	<b>insinuation</b> 196:8 <b>insist</b> 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
<b>individuals</b> 68:22 69:7 70:2 72:1	<b>inspection</b> 195:3 <b>inspections</b> 223:20	<b>introducing</b> 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	<b>instance</b> 69:23 207:21	<b>introduction</b> 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	<b>instances</b> 33:15 201:12	<b>invalid</b> 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
<b>INDYKE</b> 2:16,17	<b>institute</b> 47:14 173:11	<b>inventory</b> 162:6 <b>inverting</b> 21:16	174:3 175:23 179:23 190:9	208:11,16 212:2 217:17 218:12
<b>infancy</b> 125:14	<b>instituted</b> 146:23	<b>investigating</b> 206:18 207:1	191:9 195:6,9,12	227:11 232:6
<b>infer</b> 141:3	<b>institution</b> 45:3,16	<b>investigation</b> 6:6 151:6 152:18	201:1 205:14 221:5 224:9 227:1	<b>JEGE</b> 214:25 <b>jeopardy</b> 207:10
<b>inference</b> 234:7	<b>instruct</b> 140:21 173:16,19	<b>investigation</b> 6:6 153:18 167:12,14	227:7 229:14 230:4,10 234:17	<b>jet</b> 69:7 156:12,14 <b>jobs</b> 59:9
<b>inferences</b> 110:20 110:21 125:5 131:17 141:4 163:23	<b>instruction</b> 140:25 173:16,19	<b>investigators</b> 69:5 71:8	<b>issue-by-issue</b> 192:16,21	<b>joining</b> 7:10 <b>joins</b> 183:5,20 <b>joint</b> 190:13
<b>inflame</b> 80:7 81:16	<b>insufficiency</b> 15:2	<b>investing</b> 69:14 200:7	<b>issued</b> 25:17 90:22 161:21 210:24	<b>journal</b> 231:6 <b>JR</b> 2:9
<b>inflammatory</b> 70:25 153:25 180:21 233:16,21	<b>insufficient</b> 14:2 135:7	<b>investment</b> 71:15 <b>investments</b> 205:14	<b>issues</b> 14:15 19:16 21:1 32:2 36:10

Display truncated; use Text to download the complete prepared source.¶