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

Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

PlaintifUCounter-Defendant,

A( i ilk J. , individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT J EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF FILING HEARIN RIPT of the attached November 29, 2017, hearing c set, 6)\*

v.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and

Plaintiff'Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epste. "), hereby gives notice of the filing

**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**

I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on December 6, 2017, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1).

LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA\
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301\
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401\
(561) 727-3600; (561) 727-3601 [fax]

By: /s/ Scott J. Link

Scott J. Link (FBN 602991)\
Kara Berard Rockenbach (FBN 44903)\
Angela M. Many (FBN 26680)\
Primary: Scott@linkrocklaw.com\
Primary: Kara@linkrocklaw.com\
Primary: Angela@linkrocklaw.com\
Secondary: Tina@linkrocklaw.com\
Secondary: Troy@linkrocklaw.com\
Secondary: Tanya@linkrocklaw.com\
Secondary: Eservice@linkrocklaw.com

*Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant*\
*Jeffrey Epstein*

## SERVICE LIST

| <p>Jack Scarola<br/>Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.<br/>2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard<br/>West Palm Beach, FL 33409<br/><a href="mailto:mep@searcylaw.com">mep@searcylaw.com</a><br/><a href="mailto:jsx@searcylaw.com">jsx@searcylaw.com</a><br/><a href="mailto:scarolateam@searcylaw.com">scarolateam@searcylaw.com</a></p> <p><i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i><br/><b>J. [REDACTED]</b></p> | <p>Nichole J. Segal<br/>Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.<br/>Courthouse Commons, Suite 350<br/>444 West Railroad Avenue<br/>West Palm Beach, FL 33401<br/><a href="mailto:njs@FLAppellateLaw.com">njs@FLAppellateLaw.com</a><br/><a href="mailto:kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com">kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com</a></p> <p><i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i><br/><b>J. [REDACTED]</b></p> |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| <p><b>J. [REDACTED]</b><br/>Pottinger LLC<br/>425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2<br/>Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268<br/><a href="mailto:brad@epllc.com">brad@epllc.com</a><br/><a href="mailto:staff.efile@pathtojustice.com">staff.efile@pathtojustice.com</a></p> <p><i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i><br/><b>J. [REDACTED]</b></p>                                                                                   | <p>Marc S. Nurik<br/>Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik<br/>One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700<br/>Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301<br/><a href="mailto:marc@nuriklaw.com">marc@nuriklaw.com</a></p> <p><i>Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein</i></p>                                                                                                                                            |
| <p>Jack A. Goldberger<br/>Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.<br/>250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400<br/>West Palm Beach, FL 33401<br/><a href="mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com">jgoldberger@agwpa.com</a><br/><a href="mailto:smahoney@agwpa.com">smahoney@agwpa.com</a></p> <p><i>Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant</i><br/><i>Jeffrey Epstein</i></p>                                                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |

# EXHIBIT A

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY

L

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, individually, CO S

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

# TRANSCRIPT OF SINGS

DATE TAKEN: ay, November 29th, 2017

TIME: a.m. - 3:55 p.m.

PLACE . Dixie Highway, Room 10C

t Palm Beach, Florida

BEFORE: onald Hafele, Presiding Judge

This case came on to be heard at the time and place afores when and where the following proceedings were rept)

Sonja D.

Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 471-2995

## APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff/Counter Defendant:

LINK & ROCKENBACH, P.A. 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE

For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: A(I66A V

SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART c& SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE JR., ES By, ESQUI

0

For Jeffrey Epstein:

ATTERBURY, GOLDBE R B,WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian A th, Suite 1400 West Palm Bead 3401 By JACK A. G9tp R, ESQUIRE

For Jeffrey

DARRE t!!,/gle INDYKE, PLLC 5 Le ngton Avenue York, NY 10022 N K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE

THE COURT: We are here on Epstein versus Rothstein and . The two applicable parties being dealt with -- have a seat, please. Thank you.

being Mr. Epstein and Mr. and the counterclaim brought by Mr. against Epstein relative to a malicious A(54r prosecution claim that has been brought IS' (::!' will confine our arguments to that particular matter. And we wil gee, in mind the following: Direct all arguments to the bench. Please d eak to each other. Please stay om any pejorative, unne ar comments as it relates, in ar, to the counter-de

A÷° rdered that no remind you that the Court order I executed relative to the continuous r he trial on 14 November this year, replies be provided to the Court absent court order. You have violated my order. The replies are being ignored. I do not expect that to be repeated, absent sanctions. Is that understood? Both sides?

MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Scarola?

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If I need them, I will ask for them. I have several bankers boxes' worth of materials here. I don't need anything further unless I request it.

I am well-advised in the case, as may or may not know. I think I anno this earlier, for whatever it's •I handled the underlying case ision AB. So I have had a long hi dealing with the matters that su e instant action. Let's s with the counter-defe in limine. revised omnibus motion

> MR : May it please the Court.

44,c THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you.

0 MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. We AT?hk now that we have provided you with a forest, maybe two forests, and we really appreciate your spending the time to go through it.

> If you think back to the motion that we filed to continue -- and we appreciate Your

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Honor giving us time to understand what this case is about. The reason we need this time and we need your time today is because we are not sure what case we're trying. And we have to understand what case we're trying, Judge, in order to determine what evidence should come in.

So with Your Honor's permission, would like to just show you what I'v puJ up here, so --

THE COURT: Do you your PowerPoint? copy of

MR. LINK: Yes

THE COURT: ay have it.

IIIIIIIKENBACH: IllimPid 7 Honor? I s r this with Mr. Scarola last I approach, Your eveningty

S OMR. LINK: Your Honor, before we get the blowup and the screen, I would like to just take a minute and talk to you about what we think the evidentiary issues we have raised in our motion that have to be resolved.

( THE COURT: Thanks.

÷o

1 2 3 4 know -- you have told us this over and over -- you know the elements of malicious prosecution, and that you know them well, and they're well-settled.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 But when you read the papers you will see there is a disagreement about what those S elements are. And so I just want to take moment to go through them and find out what we really need to understand be ore we can try this case to a jury is i what facts are in dispute that a .s to decide. That's our stru

13 14 15 16 So, Your Honor, licious prosecution, ele o e, the commencement of a proceed tp t is not an issue in this case.

17 18 19 1 two. Was it filed by the nt defendant -- the counter-defendant. an issue in this case.

20 21 22 in Item three. The bona fide termination favor of the plaintiff. That is an issue in this case.

23 24 25 That takes me to item two for one moment on my board, Your Honor, which is burden of proof. The counter-plaintiffs

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

suggest in their papers that once they prove the underlying claims by Mr. ' three plaintiffs that were settled in 2010, that they have met enough to go forward and skip by the bona fide termination.

t(a tin 5 ""t\\ shifts to us as -- : The reason the bona fide termination is important is that that is the one are the burden of proof -- the one area

THE COURT: If I'm not mis m are we talking about bona fide ter of the Epstein action brought in versus Rothstein and Edwar

MR. LINK:

THE CO why are we dealing with the underl g.klaims of the bona fide termina issue?

a re dealing with. LINK: I don't know why we are, (4;47., pt that is part of the papers that we

THE COURT: They are part of the papers, as I understand it, so as to establish a nexus between the reason why Mr. Epstein brought this claim in the first place against Rothstein and, and to

try to determine the rationale that Mr. Epstein had to bring this case in the first place, which is a question that the jury is going to have, which is a question that the Court has, and what was the reason behind bringing this case.

Was it one of vengeance? hatred? Was it one of -- Was it one ARA,

MR. LINK: Malicious.

c 9

THE COURT: Malicious. get to the point. Was it one of f hat he was taking -- that the o those whose investments were ha y t as a result of that ve onzi scheme -- as he indicates in d osition -- he felt that these peopl w e taken advantage of as a result thstein's misdeeds? I don't what the reason was, and I'm sure the is going to ask what the reasons were. ut there is going to be some introduction, albeit it tempered -- clearly tempered --

MR. LINK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And Ms. Rockenbach -- I believe she was the signatory to the motion -- acknowledges that some of that 1 2 3 information is going to be in. There is no way we're going to be able to sanitize the case to that extent.

4 5 MR. LINK: We wouldn't ask the Court to do that.

6 7 8 THE COURT: So that's what I'm trying to understand. Why are we going there whet' it comes to bona fide termination?

9 10 11 12 13 MR. LINK: The reason is that I wan to make sure that we are all on t sa.e page about whose burden of proof case, because that will make ence about the evidence that n come in.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE COURT: on' think there is any issue -- I d ieve Mr. Scarola is taking issu t t initially the burden of proof i h the counter-plaintiff the e was a bona fide termination of the ase in his client's favor -- this case, meaning Epstein versus Rothstein and determination or the showing that

22 23 , and specifically Rothstein versus . Is that fair, Mr. Scarola?

24 25 MR. SCAROLA: It's fair, Your Honor, that we acknowledge that we have the burden

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

of proof with regard to every element.

It is also our position that the issue as to whether the underlying claim was bona fiably terminated in favor of

is an issue of law for the Court.

There are no disputed -- Mr. is present, yes.

There are no disputed issues of fa with regard to what happened, and th ffre, the Court will need to make th determination as to whether onstitutes a bona fide termination e believe that that is an iss th as been resolved through the appe rocess as well.

THE CO to the point where there's a b i f that the issue has been resolve ough the appellate process as agree with Mr. Scarola's position.

this point, in my view, ultimately 't becomes potentially a legal issue. If the facts are clear and there's no factual dispute, then it becomes purely a legal decision as to whether or not there's been bona fide termination.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

100 percent.

THE COURT: I don't want to deviate --

MR. LINK: I know. So I'm going to go to the next piece, which is the key, which is the absence of probable cause. And the absence of probable cause focuses here - the absence of probable cause and this 11\$:\\Y what Your Honor was just talking about (2) focuses here. December 7th, 2009. at s when Mr. Epstein brought his c m gainst Rothstein, Mr. Rothstein's Mr.

THE COURT: Di a H ng it against Rothstein's firm o y have Rothstein individually

MR. S : Rothstein, individually and Bracy Edwards, individually.

(cr. LINK: My apologies.

OTHE COURT: etracked. It's Rothstein individually and, individually. Mr. Scarola concurred and Mr. Link has now concurred. That statement is

MR. SCAROLA: And L.M., which I think is of some significance also.

4 5 6 7 8 Here is our view of what we have to do when we look at the evidence we are going to show you -- the exhibit list, the testimony to come in -- is to focus on what the jury is going to have to decide.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 Again, I'm not sure what the fa C is t re in dispute, but it's here. Th information that makes a di is what Epstein -- what Epstein at; what he considered; the inf e drew from that information; an ther when you take the totality of ormation, Your Honor, he had a reaso b basis to bring a civil proceed gainst Mr.

18 19 20 21 22 23 I don't think there is any dispute. I read the Court's transcript where the ourt has said -- the case against Mr. Rothstein, I understand that. I don't think anybody is disputing that. The question is was there sufficient --

24 25 THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on a minute. Let's not take my comments out of context.

originally?

MR. SCAROLA: Yes.

MR. LINK: She was, Judge.

Ask'

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Whether or not there was ever any issues that Mr. Epstein had viably against either Rothstein, or L.M. are still, as far as the Court is concerned, unanswered.

MR. LINK: Remember we have a default against Mr. Rothstein.

THE COURT: That's a different issue.ActIlSr

MR. LINK: I understand your point 0 Judge.

C.)

THE COURT: I don't want ents to be taken out of context.

MR. LINK: Fair en

A

THE COURT: is different than a court indicati e type of understandin Mr. Epstein's cause of action againothstein in this particular case. se, as I said, the jury will ion and the Court continues to question Mr. Epstein irst place. brought this case in the

MR. LINK: Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.

THE COURT: And the reason why that's important is because the counter-plaintiff has argued that circumstantially -- and

not as a legal term, but mo art. Because while Mr. Epstein may have his own motivation, circumstantially it is goiPic' to be up to the plaintiff to prove that O motivation was not, in fact, in good fai h. And I'm using good faith not as a rm - term of

> MR. LINK: I u rs d that.

it brings us to the point that w ed to get to. So I am with you so far rms of where you're going. And you eading me through this. I ciate it very much. THE COURT:

0 But it does get us now to this really A÷c ritical issue of, well, again, there's this huge question that's being asked by -- going to be asked by the finder of fact and the trier of the law, and that is, how does the counter-plaintiff prove its case when Mr. Epstein has answered selected questions?

based upon, in large part, invocation of the Fifth Amendment by Mr. Epstein, they are going to need to prove that or disprove that potentially through the Fifth Amendment issues that we are going to be discussing.

I was -- I am now paraphrasing Mr. Epstein's answers in large part. I found out that Rothstein was factoring these cases. i found out that these investors were being taken advantage of. Taken advantage of through the forging of an order -- forging of an order that purporte to have the signature of Judge Marra tremendously well-respected jurist i4 th4s community, now taken senior st

I, meaning Mr. Epstein .t only concerned about Rothste what he did, but also I had susp at Mr. was involved in ocess, because there were some ar es hat discussed the query could Roths have done this alone, and Vell implica a t least the cases -- not to my edge Mr. -- but the cases that was serving as lead counsel.

ome before this particular court in division AB back in 2009 and that period of time -- perhaps just around that period of time.

So there's going to be a large question in the trier-of-facts' mind and remains in

4 5 the Court's mind. How was Mr. Epstein damaged by what transpired from the standpoint of Rothstein, or what may have transpired from his own mind as it relates to Mr.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

That's going to be a huge question, and remains a huge question. What was Epstein doing at that time, meaning, why did he this lawsuit? What was his damages? was he even doing this in the lace? That's going to create an i

And the reason I br i¢ i up is solely to get into the arg at's going to be raised by the co aintiff And that is e prove this where Epstein cho to answer only certain questio garding his motivation, i.e., and probable cause?

0 But it doesn't answer questions germane ÷o his mindset that, okay, there were these factored cases by Rothstein. He's paying a severe price for what he did.

> The millionaire investors who got involved in this Ponzi scheme have clearly been damaged and restitution has been paid,

to my understanding, to the extent that those assets of Rothstein's and those who were otherwise implicated paid what they paid.

But how is Mr. Epstein damaged, and what was his motivation -- other than altruism, other than the questions that asked by Mr. Scarola, which he didn't answer -- that could have been refer myriad of things: vengeance, a hostility. But they have t ity -- in my respectful view, in these materials -- to be raise those issues and perha hrough the Fifth Amendment Av

MR. LI Maybe, Your Honor.
: We need to concentrate on And we need to not only look I'm trying to say is, through Rockenbach's excellent written at presentation

MR. LINK: I helped a little bit, Judge.

THE COURT: Actually, Mr. Link signed it.

MR. LINK: There you. I took credit for it all, Your Honor.

THE COURT: My apologies.

MR. LINK: It was a little bit of me.

THE COURT: We get in trouble when we assume. Irrespective of that, Mr. Link signed it. So you can tell I'm more concentrated on the body of work than w necessarily executed it.

But what I am trying to s what I believe respectfully is bei here is it's a one-sided argume A

Now, I agree t ave to zealously represent your c t and take his side, and I have no pr th that. But what I'm also sugges is, at the same time, there has to me consideration and some ssion that they have a viable -- I t say viable claim -- but they have iable arguments to support what they are trying to accomplish. And the means to do that is largely hamstrung by Mr. Epstein's refusal to answer questions.

Go ahead.

Those are exactly the issues we have. And there's one thing, Your Honor, I think that I would ask you to consider. This is very important. And I will tell you that if you walk through these elements, this element right here -- this is the key -- the absence of probable cause does not take in, consideration anybody's motive, their a their malice, their state of mind or anything else other than - and we will get to maliciou dead-on -- but probable objective standard. ens an facts are not in dispute, it's a ect'ive standard to be determined b ourt. That's what the Florida Sup Court has told us.

's important -- what's tant is the counter-plaintiff doesn't lenge that this information was ÷ vailable. They don't challenge that the information, when read, it says Rothstein was involved in a Ponzi scheme. It says Mr. Epstein's three cases were being used to lure investors and information about them was fabricated.

So there's not a dispute about that. The question is this. The question is, did Mr. Epstein have some reason to doubt or not believe the information he was reading. Because even though probable cause, Your Honor, is an objective standard, if I know what I'm reading is false, then I haven't really in good faith relied on it.

0 But it doesn't matter. The cas C la says you cannot establish prob ause or the lack of it by the most alice known to man.

I can hate thi en man. I can want to bury this ge an. I can want to run him out of es But if I have objective pb le cause --
: And you are saying, as a r of law, you are suggesting to me that paper articles -- which are the bulk of reliance that Mr. Epstein is suggesting -- is sufficient to establish probable cause?

MR. LINK: Yes, sir, I am.

THE COURT: We are really not there yet because --

MR. LINK: I know we're not.

THE COURT: -- this isn't a motion for summary judgment.

MR. LINK: It's not. But I wanted to answer the Court's question.

I think it's really important, Judge, as we go forward, that we differentiate thi element of probable cause and the eleme malice. Because you are exactly rig When you get to item five, mal hat's his intent to hurt Mr. Edwa at is absolutely relevant for ts 3, y determination. No . Okay. It is. But it is not re nt whether there was a lack of pr e ause. balance tha w1 have here because -- And that's a
: what's not relevant in the ce of probable cause? Are you talking t malice?

MR. LINK: Malice. Intent. We will show you cases, Your Honor, where it says if you have probable cause and you have malice, there's no claim for malicious prosecution. You only look at malice once you've established probable cause. You can't use

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

malice to establish probable cause. You can, on the other hand, use probable cause to establish malice.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. LINK: That makes sense?

THE COURT: I understand you completely.

MR. LINK: The reason that's impor is because if you combine -- if you What's in his mind? How is he yi g to hurt this guy? When he's r the Razorback complaint, th ttorney's statement, and the rs articles that are out there, are combining malice and probable

So, th what we have to avoid. It's really r acal, and here is why.

A;By the way, i want for the Court to I really appreciate the hard work that A ?Mr. ll ' team has put in. They did a lot of writing. We did a lot of writing. We have crystalized the issues for this Court's determination.

> So one of the things that Mr. tells us in his response to our motion in

4 5 limine, he wants to tell us how he's going to try this case. And here is what he says. n starts by proving the truth of the claims he brought on behalf of his three clients."

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

That evidence, Your Honor, if this case hadn't settled, would absolutely have been'S relevant to that trial, without a questnn

he material. h nothing that's in their mind or happened to them that can have uenced Mr. Epstein when he was reading

THE COURT: So what you're suggesting, though, Mr. Link, is that there could never be a successful plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case.

Every -- I shouldn't say every many of the questions that were ask Mr. Epstein that he took th- to very well could have been re o this lawsuit, okay? B t th of the allegations that are making has nothing to d hat Mr. Epstein reviewed in 2009 bef e brought the suit.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 that at all. I will give you an example. What if this lawsuit was filed and there were two articles that existed that said that Mr. had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme. And Mr. Epstein, in looking at the information that was available, took that information -- or he knew Mr. wasn't involved at all i y -- an not telling you that Mr. was(L)am saying based on the informatio a hat time --

12 13 14 THE COURT: where information, by the way, that sugest r had involvement?

15 16 MR. LINK: information that suggests thioltpL had involvement is this.

17 18 19 20 MS ach? I have a copy that might be er for the Court. I shared this with AleM r. Scarola yesterday. Your Honor, may I

21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINK: Your Honor asked a great question. It is without a doubt nothing in the press or the U.S. Attorney's office or anywhere else that comes out before Mr. Rothstein goes down that connects

hen Mr. was a sole practitioner. ?SIn y the litigation against you, you t to see things that are different from

THE COURT: Freeze that phrase for a moment.

MR. LINK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: When you think about the litigation that was brought against you --

directly Mr. to the Ponzi scheme. It does not.

So what we have to then look at is this information. So you have as your backdrop -- put yourself in Mr. Epstein's shoes for a minute. You have as a backdrop your reading that the three cases that you, have are being used to solicit investor and you're being told that you have lre dy offered a \$30 million settleme ich was untrue. That you've alread to pay \$200 million, which was That there were 50 other claim there at the Rothstein firm, h sJere untrue. And you read all of d then you start thinking ab t hat's happened in the litigat q against you.

4 THE COURT: Very well.

5 6 MR. LINK: Yes, sir. That's what I'm talking about.

7 8 THE COURT: I want to make sure that iS that is what you're saying.

9 MR. LINK: We're on the same pa e.

10 ' clients versus Mr. Eps

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mr. '4'e4 see many different things that happened. And you look at the ti is at Roths d that - this is really the question. nk it's a legal question. The (^ q io is, was there sufficient s you to think there could be fi Was there sufficient informa that you could draw a reasonable ence from that would allow you to bring vil claim? And here is what we see. We

21 22 23 24 25 So, for example, all of a sudden you have Mr. and his team saying they want to depose Donald Trump, Bill Clinton. And there wasn't any testimony from the three folks that Mr. represented

when you are saying what Mr. brought against Mr. Epstein, correct?

MR. LINK: Yes, sir.

0

4 5 6 7 8 9 The three folks that Mr. represented never said they were on one of hours deposing Mr. Epstein's pilot Ad ijir Mr. Epstein's planes, yet they spent 12 and didn't ask a single question about Mr. clients.

10 11 12 13 He had a state court case on behalf of L.M. He then fil -page federal court complaint '0-and-some counts that he neve

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 He then file ion for fraudulent transfer in a ral case saying Mr. Epstein raudulently transferring assets, lists in there all these assets And Judge Marra denies it and says was brought without any evidence hatsoever.

21 22 23 24 25 So if you look at these things that happened, and you now have them in the context of, wait a minute, I just read that Rothstein was telling folks that these cases were worth \$500 million, and Mr. Epstein has

that they had any contact with Mr. Clinton or Mr. Trump, or any of the other folks that they said they wanted to depose.

(.5 94 v

÷f riends Mr. Epstein, THE COURT: But couldn same information, Mr. Link counter-plaintiff a s it might serve whi rea es a potentially classic jury s '. n? And that is, that all of thes ngs that were done -- the inconve ing of his pilots, the veniencing of his high-level friends, implications of these high-level all of these things that were done to anger Mr. Epstein at or around the time, if my memory serves, when these cases were being settled -- doesn't that serve them just as well to create an issue of probable cause as it does your client to

already offered \$200 million. And that's not enough. We are going to get more.

If you are Mr. Epstein, you start thinking, Well, was all of this stuff being done to generate information to show the investors in the Ponzi scheme? Then we know that the flight logs that came from the pilots, that had nothing to do with the 0 three plaintiffs that Mr. us d wire used by Rothstein to show inves

say, well, all of these things were done?

And it then gets us back to what I earlier asked, and that is, even if that's taken as true, even if Rothstein was pumping these cases up and claiming to these investors that it was then publicly known through primarily the press, media was swarming -- as they should have been this absolute criminal act, the like which, from an economic standpo' from a private individual, perhaps 11 never been seen before, other, New York. A\\ Madoff in A <sup>s</sup>

But the poi ' rying still gets m o that same question. Yeah, Mr. E tt in may have been angry, he may hay n concerned about his friends, igh-level people that he associated and how this could drag him down as ell as them. to make is, it Certainly a bona fide concern, perhaps.

But then it gets to the question, yeah, with all of that, it still gets me to my original question and what the jury is going to be asking, more importantly, how was

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Epstein damaged as a result of this activity?

MR. LINK: May I answer that question? But then I have to weave back, because you gave me something I have got to talk about.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. LINK: The damage that he felt --,< now, let's keep in mind what case we're 0 trying today -- or will be trying whi h is whether there was probable c to go forward.

THE COURT: Agains wards?

MR. LINK: Aga' . We are not trying the c ainst Mr. . We don't have t ho o would have won that case. So King to get back to that in a t sec. 'llir

What he thought his damages were at the his real dollar damages is that he was pending money paying lawyers to defend what was happening during this Rothstein period.

And so if you connect the dots and say, okay -- you said it better than I did, Judge. Rothstein is doing these criminal activities, which included using my name,

1 three legitimate lawsuits --

2 THE COURT: Who is my?

3 MR. LINK: Mr. Epstein.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 MR. LINK: I keep trying to make you

6 Mr. Epstein for my example. It's the only

7 way it works for me.

8 If you're Mr. Epstein and you see O

9 Judge, you see what's in the press a

10 your -- I want to make this cl We have

11 never challenged when Mr. E lied them

12 legitimate that he didn't have a g

13 basis to do so back D That's not

14 this case i out. what

15 But in d . ' you're Mr. Epstein and

16 you see all f his information and you look

17 at what ppening here and you say, Have I

18 legal fees, paid my lawyers in order

19 ave to defend activity that was really

20 esigned not to benefit the three

21 A÷ci plaintiffs, but to let Rothstein take it and

22 show investors?

23 And we know, as a matter of fact,

24 Judge, that Rothstein did it. He used

25 bankers boxes from the Epstein cases. He

Ask

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

used flight manifests from the Epstein cases. So he actually used the information that was provided to him by Mr. to show investors.

This is going to answer your question. This is key. I think I remember your question. This is key, if I remember your question. You said what if Mr. a legitimate purpose? I believe Mr.%dwfrds can get on the stand and persu Judge, he had a reasonable 'or doing everything he did.

THE COURT: k that question.

MR. LINK: ou said what if he had a legiti is? What he was doing was trying Dnefit the three folks.
: No. What I said was, n't that information that you just cated to me that forms the basis for Epstein allegedly bringing this suit, could that not be -- could that not be utilized by Mr. to submit to the fact that -- submit the fact that the reason why Epstein brought this suit in the first place was one of trying to get back at

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for inconveniencing his friends, for dragging those friends -- high-level friends into the process, for inconveniencing his pilots? All of these things that I brought out. That was the point that I made.

A MR. LINK: What element of the claim is that for? What element? That's malice. It's not probable cause. What Mr. thought, what he did, why he did it nothing to do with probable ca e. It may have, Your Honor, a lot to malice.

THE COURT: I thin great deal to do with probable quite frankly. I think it's a mi a so to speak, when you get to p cause and malice.

I agre h you that probable cause has to there oven before malice. But I are -- certainly, in a case which is an extremely unusual and c omplex matter that there are lead-overs, if you will, as it relates to probable cause and the malice elements. And I don't think it can be disputed here. This is not like the simple cases that we read in Florida Jurisprudence that deal with malicious think like

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

prosecution the more simple concrete-type of cases that sets one plaintiff against one defendant. This is different.

And I think that the issue of malice and probable cause are going to be somewhat congealed and somewhat of a lead-over from probable cause to malice. Not vice versa. I understand the parameters legally in regard.

MR. LINK: I agree with e ing you just said except -- without s. ng the wrath of the Court -- dispute the first part you said ca I don't believe, Your Honor, that Ia is, what's in Mr. - what's in Mr. Epstein's mind about easons for bringing the case, h nything to do with probable I think they have everything to do a malice.

And the law is very clear. You can't use malice to demonstrate probable cause. So if you can't use malice, what difference does it make how much Mr. Epstein may have hated Mr. and wanted to do him harm?

1 2 pausing, and I wanted to raise a procedural question. If you are pausing --

3 4 MR. LINK: No problem. I never know when I'm pausing either.

5 MR. SCAROLA: I have the same problem.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Your Honor, I'm a little bit confused about the direction that that argument is taking, because I thought we were argui motion in limine to exclude evidence once there's a concession that 4 vidence is relevant to malice, even ccept and I don't -- that it' levant to probable cause, i nt and it comes in.

15 16 17 18 "eS So I su hat, since we have had an on-the-reco o6ncession of the relevance of the evitle that part of the argument is

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OTHE COURT: Well I think Mr. Link -- I 7\\a m giving him latitude, because I interrupted him to ask these questions that really needed to be answered from my standpoint. And as I look at these cases that are going to trial, I also try to put myself, not in either parties' shoes, but

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

certainly in juries' shoes when it comes to questions that they're going to have, and that really needs to be answered, because it helps me to narrow the issues as well. So I appreciate your courtesies in that respect.

MR. LINK: My pleasure, Your Honor.

'IS THE COURT: Let's go ahead -- and if could, let's get to the core issues thaC4..) we're dealing with today and see whe (:. e w are, because Mr. Scarola also a good point. I mean, a lot of th' ial that seems to be a matter of tion when it comes to excluding timony or this evidence, it's e 40k7etia ly been conceded that most of s idence is going to be relevant.

MR : I didn't say that. I want very clear. I did not say that the ence that he wants to submit or the uestions he asked or the exhibits that he listed should come in on malice. What I said to the court is that Mr. Epstein's state of mind and how much he would have disliked Mr. or wanted to hurt him would be relevant to malice. That's very

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

different than asking the question about do you have a preference for minor children.

THE COURT: So if we can, move now to issues of evidence that is being sought to be limited in terms of its introduction to the jury.

MR. LINK: Yes, Your Honor. My partnA ,S, Ms. Rockenbach will handle that.

0 And, Your Honor, just so the Co rt' aware, Ms. Rockenbach has a pro -es onalism meeting at Mr. Scarola's of -t starts at noon. Do you mind b at 11:45?

THE COURT: Th e. I have a court luncheon, with my colleagues down in the ci dining room at noon, so that's not blem.

CH: Your Honor, I would to take the first issue in the bus -- revised omnibus motion in limine.

But before we talk about Fifth Amendment, I just want cite one case to Your Honor before we leave this arena of probable cause.

When I was reviewing the case law in preparation for this hearing, I chuckled to

4 5 6 7 think that the Florida Supreme Court in 1926 called this an ancient action, malicious prosecution. But it is that very case that answers a point that Your Honor was just discussing. I'm talking about the Brothers case. And it says in Brothers --

8 9 THE COURT: Do you have a tab numb for me?

10 11 12 41!) MS. ROCKENBACH: The tab is -- I 4 don't know that actually. ' t be able to get that.

13 14 15 THE COURT: If your binder, I can probably fin, ou did a good job with your --

16 MS. : The index.

17 18 ; 9 T: -- index. Yeah. I don't h a acT Brothers by that first name.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 MS. ROCKENBACH: I apologize, Your onor. It's at 92 Florida 278, and it's published in 1926. The court said it is well established that want of probable cause cannot be inferred from malice, however great such malice may be, even the most express malice.

1 2 3 4 So before we leave that arena, that case back in 1926 said that you can't go backwards. You can't find malice then infer probable cause.

5 6 7 8 THE COURT: I understand. I am just making a point that, in this set of unusual A facts, it's not necessarily a clear-cut distinction that can be drawn.

9 10 11 But again, sometimes facts will cre te these types of issues and they different than the 1926 set \\1

12 But go ahead.

13 e(1 ir MS. ROCREN BACH . ThS is true.

14 15 16 17 18 So, Your Ho e first issue about the Fifth Am I want to be clear that with regard o robable cause, my client has an orig complaint that was filed against M dwards in December of 2009.

19 20 21 0 He obviously didn't raise any Fifth A+Am endment with regard to any allegations that he filed in public court.

22 23 24 25 He also filed two affidavits. Did not raise any Fifth Amendments with regard to the statements and facts that he alleged in those affidavits, one in 2013; and then the

most recent, 2013.

There's a pending motion to strike the 2017 set for these pending motion hearings.

There was never any type of attack on the 2013 affidavit and they are substantially the same.

The third issue about substantive testimony that my client gave that goes the probable cause issue were the tw depositions in which Mr. Scaro Mr. Epstein. And that firs March 17, 2010 -- and i he court file -- it was appr ma iy three hours. And it's importa r Honor, just if the Court would g me to read a few answers, be u the point here is -- I t.IV should started with this. If I may use th~ as osed

O So really there were two categories of uestions that were asked of my client by Mr. Scarola. Some pertain to Fifth Amendment, which he raised, and some pertain to the malicious prosecution action.

My client substantively answered in that March 17, 2010 deposition -- under the

column of malicious prosecution -- page 19, Mr. Scarola asked, "Your complaint in this action" -- he's referring to the malicious prosecution action -- "alleges that L.M. made claims for damages out of proportion to alleged damages. What does that mean?"

"It means what it says."

Mr. Scarola: "I don't understand Explain it to me."

questions related to his pr C S. n Mr. Epstein substantively red cause for instituting the civil pry g of ave read in settled cases for \$200 million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of serious sums of money, which is outrageous." malicious prosecuti - "I believe that as part of sc 'eme to defraud investors in lorida out of millions of dollars, ms of outrageous sums of money wade on behalf of alleged victims s the board, and the only way, in fact, t Rothstein sits in jail. And what I the paper, claims that I

He answers the questions, "Have you settled claims?" "Yes, I have."

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 23 of the same deposition. My client substantively answers the probable cause question for why he brought -- and Your Honor asked the question -- why did Mr. Epstein file this malicious prosecution action? He told Mr. Scarola back in 2010 -- AS 1 on page 23, Mr. Scarola said, "Did Brad do anything that he shouldn't h done that forms the basis of your la sui against him?"

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

"Yes, many things." c

"List them for me,

"He has gone t he dia out of, I believe, an atte to gin up these allegations. contacted the media. He has use media for his own purposes. He has ght discovery. He has engaged in very proceedings that bear no -tionship to any case filed against me by ny of his clients.

Acs\\a "His firm, which he is the partner of, has been accused of forging a federal judge's signature."

> Those are but two -- just two that I have taken and the Court has indulged me in

1 reading substantive answers.

2 3 4 5 6 7 THE COURT: Believe me, I have read these over and over again. They're segregated in various motions that I have been privy to, and I also have read the transcript in full relative to Mr. Epstein's questions.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The point that I tried to make wits, Mr. Link was that, number one, if as C a c urt as a system of jurisprudence, sly rely upon the contentions of the endant in a malicious prosecution s to probable cause, then there w lly be, essentially -- t would be no malicious prosecution at would be brought.

16 17 18 19 20 21 Second understand that it is the plainti burden of proof. Now, if it's a legal question, the Court will deal r that accordingly. But at least for now understand that it's the plaintiff's burden to prove as to probable cause.

22 23 24 25 The point that I made and tried to make with Mr. Link was if a defendant in a malicious prosecution claim -- and I think some of these cases speak essentially to

that issue -- takes the Fifth Amendment in similar types of cases, then the plaintiff's position will never really be made known, unless there's an introduction to some degree of the fact that to certain the likelihood is I am not going to questions -- now graphic sexual questions, allow those into evidence.

Co

MS. ROCKENBACH: Understood.

THE COURT: I haven't hear Mr. Scarola, so I don't wan •gest that I am prejudging anythin there is a bar that we need to as it relates to the difference bac en. 'relevant evidence and a 403. I ge

But at same time, I think as the judge, posed to an advocate, and taking consideration both sides' positions, I to recognize that there is a definitive A÷a nd direct correlation between the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights as to issues that would go to proof of probable cause relating to the plaintiff's claim, and not simply take Mr. ' (sic) contentions at face value. Because in

1 2 3 circumstances, such as this one where the Fifth Amendment has been discussed -- and in the vast majority of cases has --

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Did I misstate something?

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. You said

Mr. . You meant Epstein, I'm sure.

So the record is clear, I thought it AdA r appropriate to correct that.

THE COURT: We have all made th(s;594 ' mistakes. I knew it was going pen. I apologize for it. I caught once before. I apologize.

Madam Court Re could you just read back where arted with questioning Mr. Rockenba se?

(There the requested portion of the re was read back by the reporter as (above duly recorded.)

0 THE COURT: With the vast majority of ases that have dealt with this tension, the allowance on a limited basis of the invocation of the Fifth Amendment makes perfect sense, because logically it is a way for the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution claim -- to be able

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to prove the case -- at least prove probable cause. It makes sense.

And if I can divine common sense from these cases, then I feel I have made some reasonably decent strides. But it makes sense. I don't know if you can really argue with that logic.

MS. ROCKENBACH: I don't, Your Hon

There's a caveat. We agree with the and we would rely on two cases his point, because we are talki -- the reason I drew that line th Amendment and malicious prose about whether Mr wards can, in this malicious pr t' n case, to the jury my client took the Fifth Amendmet400 and draw a negative inference <sup>t</sup>14from. read s we're talking questions

0 The US Supreme Court in Baxter hat's the case -- that's the Fifth Amendment case it says, "It's key that there's independent evidence existing of the fact to which the parties refuse to answer."

S"

That's one building block for this issue. The second building block is a

Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments, 1993. What does Frazier tell us? Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say you have to have independent evidence in order to use this Fifth Amendment adverse inference, but Frazier says that this adverse inference i, limited against parties when they refus testify in response to probative evi offered against them. Probati dence offered against them.

We looked at those ings earlier. This lawsuit here 1 e ring involving -- I a in to say them all wrong -- E.W and Jane Doe. It's not. This is the cious prosecution ring and suit.

?S ,o Epstein's deposition to Your Honor is to how that he didn't take the Fifth Amendment on issues relevant to why he filed the malicious -- why he filed his civil proceeding, the underlying suit for this malicious prosecution case against the reason I read some excerpts from

÷

1 questions.

2 3 4 5 6 What he didn't answer were questions that would fall in the Fifth Amendment column that would be relevant in those three claimants' lawsuits or claims or criminal action.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In that substantive three-hour AS AY Isy deposition taken of my client, he was a "How many children have you sexually abused?" Have you ever sexual sed children? Have you ever so with - and then he was asked a p lic figures -- the gove ew Mexico?

14 15 16 17 18 19 "On how man ca ions did you solicit prostitution ow any prostitutes do you contend you oo icited? How many minors have you pro for prostitution. These are many times did you engage ral sex with females under age 18?" ions -- How

20 21 22 23 24 25 These have no relevance to the malicious action. And those are the very questions that we are asking Your Honor to not only preclude from being admitted to into evidence or any reference in the malicious prosecution, but also to preclude

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. from using the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when those very questions have, A, no probative value in this lawsuit, no probative evidence, whatsoever; and B, there is no independent evidence --

THE COURT: I knew you all worked very hard in having produced these materials you all got involved somewhat late i game, but what I didn't get is de initive list of questions and answe are sought to be excluded.

Globally, as I inclination i t o allow those types of questions ~~,~nel sked to be utili -- to be published to the jury. my ted, and thus far, of Mr. Epstein or

However, questions that deal with the that suits were brought against

Epstein by at least the three people that were brought -- other suits that were brought against Mr. Epstein either by minors or by women of age that were actually filed or claims that were made and were paid by Mr. Epstein, those types of questions, I

1 2 3 4 believe, are going to be of probative value, which is essentially relevance, defined as tending to prove or disprove a material fact.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

g ut THE COURT: What I would percei Ce t being the probative issue or t re evance gets to why Mr. Epstein bro s claim in the first place. A estion, as I mentioned before, t jury is going to have and the Cou and for them to be hamstrung fr g those questions, flies in the face a far as I'm concerned, of the majorit the cases that I have read that on these types of cases. They may not specific malicious prosecution case, the logic still is maintained. You see?

What's the material fact? You can answer it or I will answer it.

MS. ROCKENBACH: I have a question fo Your Honor. But go ahead. O

It can be differentiated -- some of these graphic questions that I'm not going to repeat here, but are a matter of public record and are in the materials far more graphic than what you have given us as

1 2 3 exemplars -- and I respect the fact that you didn't need to bring those into the record today.

4 5 6 But what I am saying is that it goes back into the logic that I described earlier.

7 8 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor mentioned two categories --

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 O THE COURT: And I'm not excuc, for a moment. I apologize for I a But I'm not trying to be defini far as the categories that are, nng o be or not be allowed. What I' tr.erfg to give you is some type of glo a spective, because, as I said befo tunately, whether it's time or what/ it may have been, the questio o my knowledge, have not been gated out. So as to go through on a tion-by-question basis, yes or no. That ay have to be done at a later time.

21 22 23 24 25 But what I'm trying to do is indicate to you that from a jury perspective, they are going to need to know what fueled potentially, Mr. Epstein. Was it what he says, or at least from a circumstantial

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

standpoint, and based upon his refusal to answer questions germane to those three pseudonym -- the pseudonyms used by those plaintiffs and others who have brought claims -- I don't think those three cases, to my recollection, were the only three cases that were brought -- maybe by Mr.

awyers? Is that what you're going to suggest? TH\$ JRT: Are you going to tell me -- part of -- Mr. Epstein did not g any cases against any of the other

MS. ROCKENBACH: Number one, that is true and correct and accurate. He did not. And those other cases -- any other claims that were not being represented by

II. ROCKENBACH: They were the ones brought by Mr. %at leads me to the point -- I was g ump back with Your Honor and say identified two categories and you d s potentially relevant and pro ve o discuss those three that w three lawsuits and others.

I

Mr. , they have no relevance to Mr. Epstein's lawsuit that he brought in December of 2009.

THE COURT: You can argue that. I have no problem with that argument.

MS. ROCKENBACH: But, Your Honor, as you've recognized, Your Honor is the gatekeeper. And introducing evidence t has absolutely no probative value an relevance would be very harmfu inflammatory and clearly pr my client from --

THE COURT: I t er4nd the point. You can proceed. 'gale

> MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor.

'77 MR. LINK Your Honor, can I offer a suggest ased on what I have heard?

44S THE r COURT: Any objection, Mr. Scarola?

MR. SCAROLA: No, sir.

0

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. LINK: Your Honor raises a good point, which is, without the specific questions in front of you, it makes it more difficult.

scrambled up until 10 o'clock the night before Thanksgiving.

THE COURT: That's why I wasn't criticizing anybody for not having --

MR. LINK: And we didn't take it that way, Judge.

But I do think it would be helpful foS the Court and for the parties if we go O through the questions and the answerC- there's not that many of them, 4ly - and have the Court make a r .ecause without doing it questi estion from the depositions, yo re ving this general guidance, but it help us get ready for the jury Your Honor.

THE C T I agree. I agree. And I have no lem with that. We have set several days in order to deal with

But we can talk about the general theory of the utilization of the Fifth Amendment and how that is going to be presented to the jury. So let's go on and proceed further, please.

MR. LINK: Thank you, Judge.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor.

I have provided Your Honor with the law that really is central and core to your gatekeeping function under 90.401 and 403. And the point is that there's no probative evidence. These Fifth Amendment questions that were asked of my client --

O

THE COURT: No probative value.

C.)

MS. ROCKENBACH: No proba 4 alue.

And the Frazier -- the Four says that even that adverse infer a inst parties when they refuse to St in response to probative evide ffered against them.

If my c d taken the Fifth Amendment n r. Scarola asked a question about w id Mr. do to wrong you? id he abuse his license to practice and my client said Fifth Amendment, A÷a bsolutely, that is a question that would not only get read, it would get the adverse inference.

> But the questions that were asked of my client have zero probative value and are not anything related to the issues of probable

1 cause in this action.

2 So I might suggest that since

3 4 5 6 Mr. Scarola is the proponent of those questions and that evidence, that he would identify questions that he wants to present to which my client pled the Fifth.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Before I stop speaking, though, just one other point. Mr. wants to my client's invocation of the Fifth Amendment as a gag order on th malicious prosecution answe ing, in one of his motions it's ke the affidavit.

14 15 16 17 18 19 And to be c to' the court, we are not submitti fidavit as testimony at trial. We t do that. But it is a bluepri or what my client would testify a ' t ( C /12s is the nst Mr. . complaint that my client filed

20 21 22 23 24 25 Those were the allegations and the facts and circumstances, which goes to probable cause that Mr. Epstein relied on in December of 2009. So Mr. is moving to strike the affidavit, and based on the Fifth Amendment, says that my client can't

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

use it sword and shield. My client is not using Fifth Amendment as sword and shield whatsoever.

In the example I gave Your Honor, that would be a sword and shield if my client refused to answer the question of why he Mr. in December of 2009, why hedj i r l filed the original proceeding against instituted that action, Fifth Amendm that would be a sword and shie d they could get an adverse infere

So part of my omni evised omnibus motion in l' d the response to, I think, Mr. ar s motion to strike my client's a t, implicates the Fifth Amendment.
: We will take up with the ing of the affidavit separately.

;:!) MS. ROCKENBACH: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't think

MR. SCAROLA: That issue is moot. The affidavit is not going to come into evidence, obviously. It was moved to be stricken as support for a motion that has already been denied. So I don't know why

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

we're talking about striking the affidavit.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Good. Then it seems that it's moot by Mr. and we will move on. But we wanted to make sure that that testimony that's provided in the affidavit should not be under some type of gag order. My client should be able to testify as to what -- why he had proba C b cause.

THE COURT: My position, Mr. Scarola mentioned its m was that as long as the informat set forth in the affidavit, w h the way -- and it's not uncommo a brilliant as both sides are, have a copy of the affidavit.

MS : I apologize to the for that.

OTHE COURT: A÷h cave been attached somewhere -- one other thing. I don't know why Mr. Scarola, from your office, I didn't receive any binder or anything else. I had to, last night, copy the replies and the responses to take home with me. It's okay. While it may

MR. SCAROLA: We work in a binder-free zone, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's fine. But I do require -- because most -- as last night most of my preparation is done at home. And I'm so tired of looking at computers that it's much easier for me to have the hard copies.

I know others are much more comC:, savvy when it comes to those k things. But I just find it omfortable to be able to have some my hand and read it. If you caq. in go ahead and forward them to a o -- last night getting the response wing my JA -- I commend her for sta as late as she did last night a tting all of that material and ng getting it all marshaled --

O Again, I just wanted to gently remind ou folks that I may do things differently than others in the sense that I still like to have hard copies and not to sit there in front of a computer later in the evening.

÷Y

Anyway. Sorry I got off on that tangent.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Did you want to add anything else?

MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. As

part of that omnibus motion in limine, we

somewhat moved on from the Fifth Amendment

questions and answers, because I think

Mr. Scarola may want to tee up for the Court

what precise questions that he is seeking

admit and introduce into evidence, so t

Your Honor can rule on each one. pe ap we

can take that up after lunch. ot sure

if that works.

THE COURT: I woul

of Mr. Scarola's ar

like to get into obal issue of the

Fifth Amendm a well as parameters that

he believes r appropriate as it concerns

the nat of the questions that are going

sought to be introduced and the

cation of the Fifth Amendment and where

stand currently.

Because if I'm understanding correctly,

because of the pendency of that federal

lawsuit, essentially Mr. Epstein is going to

be taking the same position now as he has in

MS. ROCKENBACH: With regard to the Fifth Amendment?

THE COURT: Yes,

II. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor.

That's correct. I want to make sure. But not with regard to any probable cause questions, like those that were asked in h depositions, to which he did not invoke Fifth Amendment.

They were relevant questio Cthis action. He will not be inv e Fifth as to those questions. consistent with the questions e asked of him in his deposition, hi he invoked the Fifth, he wi ing that again.

THE C And you're not, at this point -cause I know that the was concerned t retracting any of his Fifth Amendment ''invocations. That is not planned at this juncture? er-plaintiff

> MS. ROCKENBACH: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So that obviates, then, the need for Mr. Scarola to redepose

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Epstein?

MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct.

THE COURT: Mr. Scarola, thank you for your patience. You may proceed, sir.

Thank you, Ms. Rockenbach and Mr. Link, for your written and oral presentations.

MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, Yo'14S" Honor. If you don't mind, I'm going to O stand at the podium that says, Plain iff

Your Honor, there is a ver f damental disagreement between presen for Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwa ou heard Mr. Link say -- and k I took down the quote exactly -- e never challenged that these t es were legitimate cases.

hese three cases were legitimate can understand why it is that is point in the litigation, Mr. Link r es that they had never challenged that cases.

But the fact of the matter is that was sued for ginning up, fabricating, constructing those three cases, and others, as a knowing participant in Florida's largest ever Ponzi scheme, that

4 5 6 7 He was alleged to have fabricated these cases. And it was alleged that the reason 41.1\\ why he fabricated the cases was as a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme. "

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I can provide the court -- and I do that -- with a copy of the complaint that was filed in this action. We hlighted various allegations in that nt, Your Honor, that specificall e the assertions that Bray ards was involved in manufacturing, br'cating, ginning up these claims

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rior written sworn testimony so as to In par h seven, it is alleged that L.M. wa essential participant in the referenced in this complaint, by g other things, substantially changing assist the defendants, plural, in promoting their fraudulent scheme for the promise of a multi-million dollar recovery relevant to civil actions, defined below, involving Epstein, which was completely out of

is, there were two clearly identifiable allegations of wrongdoing contained within the complaint filed by

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

proportion to her alleged damages.

If we go to paragraph 30, "By using the civil actions against Epstein as bait and fabricating settlements regarding same, Rothstein and others were able to lure investors into Rothstein's lair and bilked IS them of millions of dollars which, in turn were used to fund the litigation against 2.) Epstein for the sole purpose of cont ui g the massive Ponzi scheme."

"The sole purpose of c cg the massive Ponzi scheme." a eren't legitimate claims. ey re being used solely to fund t on 1 scheme, according to the alleg

Thirt "As part of this scheme, Rothste d the litigation team" -- and itigation team is defined in the laint as Brad

Paragraph E: -- "utilized the judicial process, including, but not limited to, unreasonable and unnecessary discovery for the sole purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme."

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to interrogatories in the state court matters, E.W. and L.M., and listed additional high-profile witnesses that would allegedly be called at trial, including, but not limited to:" And then various individuals are identified.

And then paragraph 41. "The purpose of the scheduling of these sole A:;641; v (::) v ot depositions was, again, to pump up t C e c ses to date r have to investors. There is no evi that any of these individua <sup>l</sup> Akst actions." k -li any knowledge regarding\\ 's ivil

THE COURT: e quote from p 41, as opposed to argument. record, that's a

MR'tIOAROLA: Thank you. Sir. I'm scktS

O If we go to page 18 of the complaint, ubparagraph H. "Rothstein" and again, this is a quote.

÷s

"Rothstein and the litigation team knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons."

Those reasons are listed.

Again, questioning the legitimacy of the claims.

Page 21, paragraph 44. "The actions described in paragraph 42 above herein had no legitimate purpose in pursuing the civil" litigations (sic) "against Epstein, but rather were meant to further the fraudu scheme and criminal activity of Roth

Paragraph 46, the last li RRA and the attorneys in the civil

Please remember, th~piVV1 action is a defined term in the . It's L.M., E.W. and Jane Do claims -- "needed to create a fic t t included extraordinary damages. a r, the actual facts behind her act ould never support such ordinary damages."

0 Going down to the last sentence in s ubparagraph A. "Under the circumstances, her claim for damages against Epstein, one of L.M.'s many johns during that same period, would be so incredible and certainly not likely to produce the extraordinary settlements promised to RRA's investors."

Paragraph 49 of page 27, second sentence. "Rather than evaluating and resolving the cases based on the merits, that is, the facts, which included knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual actions by each of the claimants and substantial pre-Epstein psychological and emotional conditions," et cetera. O

P So again, the allegation is tha C th se children were knowledgeable, v ry and consensual participants.

THE COURT: Let me this. My memory is good, butt at The three litigants that dwards represented and perhaps stil ents -- L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe -- e they all allegedly underagrtb t the time of these encounters?

A;M . SCAROLA: Yes, sir, they were. So obviously, as a matter of law, they Algewere incapable of consenting.

> The last sentence I want to reference in this case, Your Honor, appears at page 30. The last sentence in paragraph 52, in order to continue to bring in moneys from investors, Rothstein and other

co-conspirators used the civil actions against Epstein, along with other manufactured lawsuits, as a means of obtaining massive amounts of money."

So when opposing counsel tells you, We have never challenged that these three cases were legitimate, again, while I understand why they wish that were true, that is n true.

C )

cases were ginned u was -- referring E.W. and Jane Doe -- what was, Well, when I said ginned up, nt manufactured, fabricated cases. din about And when Mr. Epstein was this action, Mr. Epstein wa what he meant when he t i that these what he said

?Sind its the Fifth Amendment with regard to +II atters that are relevant to probable cause, as to whether he had a legitimate basis to claim that fabricated these cases. the assertion is made that he never

> Page 34, the deposition of March 17, 2010 at line 23, quote, Specifically, what

are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. ginned up?

Answer: "I would like to answer that question. A, many of the files and documents that we've requested from Mr. and the Rothstein firm are still unavailable.

iS "With respect to anything that I point to today, I'm, unfortunately, oin to have to take the Fifth Amendme Ch that, the Sixth and Fourteenth."

Now, that's just o obvious rectly, what are the allegations It, claim in your complaint ar and he refuses to answer the ion on basis of the Fifth Amendme civilege. There are many others. example where he's

!SAnd y the question is posed, which tions do I want to place before the jury s to which Mr. -- excuse me, I did it -- to which Mr. Epstein has asserted the Fifth Amendment, and the answer is every single one of them.

THE COURT: And that's where we're going to have difficulty. As far as the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Court is concerned the case that -- strike that.

been with things of that nature The question and answer that was just provided would be admissible. What we're talking about, Mr. Scarola, are questions that were cited in the motion and that the court has chosen not to read, that are of aC graphic, sexual nature, and have, to my recollection, a general form of ques ion as opposed to specifics: Have yo done certain things to minors? ever prostitutes? 4SOu ever --

MR. SCAROLA 41S on't recall that last question, bu -, rstand the Court's -- I understand e ourt's concern.

T : Ms. Rockenbach's question.

A 's"Again, I know you understand it, but I to make sure that the record is clear, A÷a nd that's this. I have an obligation, as both sides are well aware, to ensure that we are working on a level playing field to the extent that it is possible.

> I have the obligation, as Ms. Rockenbach points out, to be the

gatekeeper of evidence and to ensure to the best of my ability that we are not going to be engaging in pejorative name-calling types of questioning, nor are we going to get into inflammatory types of questioning just for the sole purpose of information.

Now, I know you wouldn't do that. at the same time, as advocates, your respective positions have to be clea favor of your respective clien

However, as I said ear becomes an issue of dri specifics before I actual questions introduced. 'own really into the rulings on the are being sought to be

So thecbal decisio aspect of the Court's this time, until I look at the 1 questions, is essentially this. And, r is, that I'm going to permit -- and e've already gotten a stipulation on the record by Mr. Epstein's counsel, which I appreciate -- that is, he's not going to be receding from his Fifth Amendment invocations. He's not going to be changing his testimony, so as to necessitate further

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

discovery as it relates to his testimonial evidence that has already been presented.

Therefore, those questions that deal with, for example, the question that you asked and answered, would be admissible. Those, because of the reasons that I stated A earlier, would seem to make common sense t me and seems to be the thrust of the 0 decisions of the court's, whether in Florida or outside of Florida -- the v being outside of the state federal courts -- and, Fifth Amendment can sed to take away jority from the that the Mr. ' abi to' prove his case or prove the pr a ause element.

So to a xtent that it would be needed in front of the jury, any ions that deal with the issue of

Epstein's lawsuits brought by

on behalf of the respective clients, would be germane. And any invocation, such as what was illustrated here, would be germane and relevant and found to be admissible. That's the core ruling of the Court.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

perspective of the need to drill down further, is one of A0104Ar The closer question, and the one that I because the complaint -- and I apprecia ) the fact that you brought this with C ou today and provided it to me -- eca se the complaint delineates the na allegations -- at least summary aims -- how much the are we going to ble to introduce, if those questi e asked? I haven't memorized t position testimony.

Now, when it comes to issues of general graphic questioning, such as what has been exemplified by way of the counter-defendant's motion, those will not be permitted.

Isy

There at least two depositions, if of mistaken.

S:) 4 MS. ROCRENBACH: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Two depositions. I haven't memorized that testimony.

But since the complaint -- let me cite to you exactly where we are -- where I am alluding to here. Page 18 and it states, "Rothstein and the litigation team knew or

relevant but problem qu Then it goes through "L.M. testified she had never had any type of sex with Epstein; worked at numerous clubs; is an admitted prostitute and call girl; has a A(16:Ar history of illegal drug use" (pot, painkillers Xanax, Ecstasy); and con inu lly asserted the Fifth Amendment d her depositions in order to avx -ring >n for her.

"E.W. testifie strip clubs, inc cheetah, which RRA represented hich Rothstein may have owned an in r t. And E.W. also worked at Platinu wgirls in Boynton Beach, which, e subject of a recent police raid, e dancers were allegedly selling - p rescription painkillers and drugs to customers and prostituting themselves. rked 11 separate

> "Jane Doe (federal case) seeks \$50 million from Epstein. She and her attorneys claim severe emotional distress as a result of her having voluntarily gone to

should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Epstein's home. She testified that there was never oral, and/or sexual intercourse; nor did she ever touch his genitalia. Yet, Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress well prior to meeting Epstein as a result of having witnessed her father murder his girlfriend's son. She was required to sworn testimony in that matter and has admitted that she lied in sworn test Jane Doe worked at two differe ip clubs, including Platinum S r1 in Boynton Beach." End qu A

13 14 15 16 17 That's going t atter for further discussion, as f s at, if any, questions we ed to those three individuals whether Mr. Epstein refused to answ r hose questions.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A;Because e questions specific to those three i ndividuals, then the likelihood is again without prejudging -- I haven't looked at those questions -- that I will admit those into evidence, because they relate directly to Mr. Epstein's claim in his deposition and his repeated claim that these cases were, if he did refuse to answer

quote, ginned up, end quote, and had no merit until rather recently.

MR. SCAROLA: And in that regard, Your Honor, obviously, if the defense is going to take the position, as they have stated on the record now, that these were all legitimate claims, the extent to which we need to get into details with regard to happened between Jeffrey Epstein and the three claimants against hi be very different than if t challenging the legitim he claims. oing to ist in

Now, if they d if they are continuing to c e the legitimacy of the claims, the on-the-record announcemen t t's just been made, this is going t a very different trial than if come in and say, In spite of the fact Jeffrey Epstein alleged that A÷E dwards fabricated these claims, we no longer take that position. We recognize the fact that these were, indeed, legitimate claims, very valuable legitimate claims. So valuable that we settled them for S5.5 million in combination. And extremely

1 2 valuable claims because of the punitive damage exposure that Mr. Epstein confronted.

3 4 How much we need to prove is dependent upon how much is contested.

5 6 I doubt that they are going to concede punitive damage liability.

7 8 9 THE COURT: Where are we on that? there been a ruling on the punitive dam claim?

10 11 12 MR. SCAROLA: We have an permitted by the Court. punitive damage claim pending ag . Epstein.

13 14 15 16 17 18 There are pend' es with regard to the implications Fi h Amendment assertions w rd to issues concerning net worth, c ase among the questions he's refused'tile. nswer are any questions relating t S 's net worth.

19 20 Si 0 THE COURT: Okay. But there is a Al current punitive damage claim?

21 MR. SCAROLA: Absolutely. Yes, sir.

22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I just want to make sure. The way it was written, it was a little bit cryptic in terms of pending. I didn't know if it was still a motion that needed to be

1 2 heard in that regard. That's all been taken care of.

3 4 MR. LINK: I think Judge entered that order, Your Honor.

5 6 MR. SCAROLA: All over but the jury verdict.

7 8 9 10 Your Honor, in the 10 minutes or nine minutes now that I have left before lun want to go through something that I will be helpful to the Court.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 In resolving some of t ups that Your Honor has focused h clearly are rd to how probable cause i oven in the context of a Fifth Amendm s rtions on the part of the defenda who won't talk about some element issues of concern w

18 19 LINK: Mr. Scarola, one second? Do you mind? may I interrupt

20 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir.

21 22 23 24 MR. LINK: Judge, I want to make sure this is clear, because I thought I stated this very clearly, but sometimes what comes our of my mouth isn't what's in my head.

MR. LINK: Which is, I believe I very clearly said that we have never taken the position that during the time that

Mr. was a sole practitioner, when these cases were filed up to the point that he joined Mr. Rothstein's firm, did we contend that he was doing anything that wa% inappropriate. O

THE COURT: Okay.

C

MR. LINK: During the tim- he was at the Rothstein firm -- if 1 read the complaint -- everyt t Mr. Scarola just read to you wall ring the time he was employed at Rothstein's firm.

There i fi allegation in this complaint t tt relates to the time period from whey were filed until he joined othstein's firm.

0 That's a very significant distinction, ecause we are absolutely going to say that Mr. Rothstein himself was using --

MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Could I finish my argument in the few minutes that are left before we hear rebuttal?

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

hear what Mr. Link is trying to suggest so that you can formulate your argument.

MR. SCAROLA: I know exactly --

THE COURT: I will give him a minute.

MR. LINK: I don't want to take long.

said I just want to clarify, because Mr. Scarola that we have conceded that nothing waS fabricated.

0 What was fabricated was not the fil ng of the three lawsuits in 2008. as that there were other claims in to those three, and that one of ree settled for 30 million, and at r. Epstein had offered \$200 mil hose are the things that we were about during that time period. C

Again, quote, Well, the allegation, in subparagraph H, which was already into the record -- I will read it Rothstein and the litigation team -- parenthetically Mr. Scarola has suggested that the litigation team is defined as Mr. -- returning to the quoted provisions -- knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak 4 5 6 7 and had minimal value -- and for the reasons I have already gone through in addressing what I think is going to be relevant as to those three individuals if the contention is still that these claims were not legitimate during the period of time that Mr. Rothstein ad Mr. worked together.

8 9 10 11 12 MR. LINK: I just want to make thi distinction. I don't want to beat t is horse too much. If you look a paragraph before that parag talks about the \$500 million

13 14 ac y THE COURT: I 1 e that in consideration. l

15 16 MR. LINK ol t's relative to that Secondlia9,6 Honor

17 18 19 LA: I'm sorry. I would like, e few minutes remaining, to be able to some points before --

20 21 22 THE COURT: Mr. Link, I am going to ask you, then, to save your commentary for rebuttal.

23 24 MR. LINK: I just was trying to answer your questions.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

question pending, but I appreciate it.

MR. LINK: My pleasure.

MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I have

prepared an outline, which I hope is of some help to the Court in placing these issues in context.

The first thing that Your Honor needs, to determine is the issue that we have focusing on. What are the factual ) C.. allegations that we claim were alx iously prosecuted against

Now, what we have rd is an effort to draw a di nc n that is not drawn in the co nt What we heard is we claim that t e eg imate cases that were filed by Br while he was the sole pr tioner somehow became itimate the moment he walked trough the r of RRA. That's what we just heard. hat just doesn't make any sense. That's not the allegation in the complaint.

The allegation in the complaint -- and as testified to by Mr. Epstein repeatedly in his deposition -- the allegation in the complaint is, quote, ginned

1 2 3 up these claims and he describes that as he crafted the complaints, he fabricated the complaints.

4 5 6 Now ginned up doesn't happen to appear in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. But there are sources that define ginned up.

7 8 9 The Oxford Dictionary says ginned up means to generate or increase something especially by dubious or dishonest m

10 11 12 The McMillan dictionary: o eate, to generate, especially artifi g or by dubious means.

13 14 The Free Dicti To create or produce.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So what alleged to have done is to have gen 1,4 means, ms d by dubious and dishonest on behalf of three individuals eal y weren't victims for the sole ose as Mr. Epstein repeatedly a lleges for the sole purpose of supporting a massive Ponzi scheme, in which, as Your Honor as observed repeatedly -- and I will get to this in just a moment -- Jeffrey Epstein could not possibly have been a victim. Didn't know about it. Didn't

know anybody involved in it. Didn't know it was going on until after it was over. Didn't spend a single penny investing in his own fabricated settlements.

And to the extent that he claims his damages are attorney's fees for what was going on while these cases were being prosecuted, Your Honor is very, very familiar with the litigation privile (l e, t nd knows that nothing that went o course of the prosecution o cases, whether it was legitima legitimate, 4.1 fre can form the basis ; a arate civil lawsuit.

Motion co empt, motion to impose sanctions, 5 motion, bar complaint -- a lot of remedies are available, but not arate civil action, because he had to d attorney's fees on what he claims were ÷'llegitimate discovery pursuits, which the evidence will show were totally and completely justified, and in many cases initiated long before ever became a member of RRA.

1 that --

2 3 THE COURT: You are talking about the expenditure of attorney's fees?

4 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. That's correct.

5 6 Could not be damages. Just can't be as a matter of law.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Even if it were not already clear tha Epstein alleged Brad fabricated the thr cases he was prosecuting against Eps that's the only allegation tha possibly support a claim ag because as I mentioned se of the litigation privileg

14 15 16 17 18 But in addi to' that, he suffered no damage from o i scheme. He didn't even know a u it. Any action Brad took in the cou f prosecuting those three cases, ute y privileged.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 And as e stablished in this case that there was no evidence to support those claims, because we filed a motion for summary judgment. On the eve of the motion for summary judgment, without ever having filed any opposition whatsoever, he voluntarily dismissed those a matter of law, it has been

claims. That issue has been resolved.

So we must prove lack of probable cause as to either/or both of the two false claims. We have to prove Epstein did not have a reasonable basis to believe that Brad fabricated the three claims, and he didn't have reasonable basis to allege that Brad S was a knowing participant in the Ponzi 0 scheme.

Alk"

C

How do we do that when the a Fifth Amendment assertion? How d+ • •ove what Epstein reasonably belied -n he blocks relevant discovery assertion, not only of a Fifth a dment privilege, but of a clearly le a attorney-client privilege a w 1

r Honor has read the itions. You know all of the relevant tions that were not answered with regard o attorney-client privilege are matched by the number of relevant questions to which he asserts attorney-client privilege as well.

So where do we go from there? And the answer --

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

wrap up. I want to respect the fact that I have already allowed Ms. Rockenbach to leave at 11:45.

> MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Thank you. I will, Your Honor.

The answer lies in a very fundamental presumption. And that fundamental presumption is every person is presumed have intended the natural and probab C e ) consequences of his act. Very principle of law. It is ci ifically in the case that I have h page. But it is a universal p of law recognized in al can jurisdictions.

hose are three provisions of the evidence code -- talk about the effect of that presumption -- and I won't go into that now. I will wait until after lunch -- but, basically, this lays out the way this case is proved. Florida statute 90.301 through 304 --

So, pro Epstein filed a false claim again adley gives rise to the pre ion that he intended to file a claim against

If we prove that these were not false claims, if we prove that Jeffrey Epstein knew they weren't false claims, because he was the one who physically participated in doing what he is alleged to have done, so he had to have known what he did -- once we've proven that, the presumption arises he intended to file knowingly false claims O against and we have if ed the burden of proof to him to p one of two things: the claims were That's a defense. The other def Well, we know the claims wer lie reasonably belie t to be true at the time. Thank C.P) is) u sir. I will leave it right ue, but I

there.

(\\T HE COURT: Thank you, again, both s for your excellent presentations. "Ar\\la i'T hank you to our courtroom personnel as well.

> What we are going to do is return at about 1:40. I have something that I need to do between the lunch, which I'm going to leave a little early and an errand I need

do. So come back at 1:40.

What I propose we will do is I will give you two hours this afternoon. We will go to about 3:40, and then proceed back with the remaining issues on the days that we have already set aside.

Again, thank you all very much for yo,SA courtesies. Have a pleasant lunch. reconvene at 1:40. We will be in re ess Thank you.

(A recess was had 11:4 - 1:44 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good of jlno. , everybody. Welcome back. Okay S t o ahead and proceed then.

Mr. Sca \`,were in the midst of your Power

MR OLA: Thank you, sir. Yes.

A/%Your 14 h we broke off, the defense has taken "d\\s"\\t he position that the Baxter and Frazier cases stand for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment may not be the sole basis upon which a plaintiff rests its case to satisfy the burden of proof with regard to any element of the plaintiff's claim. We Honor, just to recap the point at

don't take issue with that. That's good law.

You cannot determine from a Fifth Amendment adverse inference alone whether probable cause did or did not exist. And what the other evidence is that both A(54Ar lsy that's why I have reviewed with Your Honor directly and circumstantially establish that there was an absence of probabltafse.

We begin with a point tha presumed to have intended t h one did. And Jeffrey Epste he filed claims demonstrated alse, is presumed to have intended.flf e claims that were false.

We Indepen of any evidence that relates to we get to prove the truth of Brad rds' underlying claims on behalf of ÷.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. are C o taking about malice yet.

So that then brings us --

THE COURT: I think I have already essentially ruled on that from a global standpoint. I am in agreement with you that any Fifth Amendment invocation as it

pertains to L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe again, globally and without getting into graphic -- I intend to admit as being relevant.

You can proceed.

MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

So we had broken off at this point where I began to talk about Florida vid nce Code sections 90.301 through 30,jnd I have a copy of those eviden provisions that I will to the Court. I have provided the well. osing counsel as

> THE CO AS you.

MR. SCAROLA: These provisions focus on the shi burden of proof, what a mption does and what a presumption does And I have underlined some sections A÷h ere for Your Honor that I think are of particular significance in those three evidence code provisions.

> And basically the gist of these evidence code provisions is that once we have proven that these were false claims,

0 P And that's the point at which w C br ke for lunch, where I pointed out at that point, Mr. Epstein has ever t to come in and say, now, wait a eon You have put on evidence tha hhe were false claims -- I mean, at hese were valid claims, but he right to come in put on evidence h k they were not valid claims. And he utely does.

( ,13E COURT: y point A÷fact that we can't take it from one side only, and that if the proof is essentially within the invocation of the Fifth Amendment, i.e., the questions that were asked that would be pertinent to the issues of probable cause but refuse to be answered, I think that was the gist I made earlier regarding the

once we have adduce proof that these were false claims, and take advantage of the presumption that the filing of knowingly false claims gives rise to one is presumed to have intended to do that, which one did, and probably consequences of filing false A and presumed to have intended the natural claims, then the burden shifts.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

then should not be penalized because of that.

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. And I certainly agree with it. And that's why I made the comment that it becomes significant when the defense stands up during the course AS" of this argument and says we are not claiming that these were fabricated cla at the point in time at which Brad is a sole practitioner. We're ing they became fabricated claims of oined RRA. And then I guess t y re saying is they're unfabric d n he settled them for \$5.5 millio

If he w 'try to make that argument to h jury, that's fine. He can try to that argument to the jury. think it's going to go anywhere as a er of fact, nor do I think it's going to o anywhere as a matter of law. But he can try it. He can try to say the valid claims got unvalidated and then got validated again, and I settled them for \$5.5 million.

At any rate, the burden does shift to him.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Now, he can also say that these were valid claims, but I reasonably believe them, mistakenly, but reasonably believed them to be invalid claims. I had probable cause to support my malicious prosecution claim, because I thought, mistakenly, but reasonably, that they were invalid claims.

8 9 10 Then we get to the fact that Epste cannot reasonably believe what Jeffr Epstein knows to be false.

11 12 13 And Jeffrey Epstein kn her he molested these children these children. idn't molest

14 15 16 ?;;PI all7 e So if we pr tha he molested them, he cannot co reasonably believed that he did olest them.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Weed that he knew the cases were abricated with proof that he actually sted L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. We proved ginned up cases. These were not fabricated or created, not ginned up by proving that he settled them for \$5.5 million, not while he was under some misapprehension about what these cases were all about, but after the Ponzi scheme was hat these were not

fully and completely disclosed, after he read all of these news articles that he claims that he relied on -- or that his lawyers claimed he relied on, because he hasn't made those claims, but his lawyers have made those claims -- and we proved the A cases weren't fabricated, with proof of MA'S, guilty plea to the molestation of child with his Fifth Amendment assertion, se his Fifth Amendment assertion t point clearly is relevant and mat ..nd an adverse inference can b from that.

We proved that not have a basis to file these cl ecause he fails to defend again ummary judgment, voluntarily iJnisses the cases, and never

refiles ?SI? point amide resolution of his claims in favor of . And we proved the cases were not ginned up by proving similar fact evidence. question about the fact that, at in time, there has been a bona

And Your Honor made some reference to this, but I want to be sure that we focus PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (561)471-2995

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

specifically on this aspect of the case, because one of the things that the defense is attempting to exclude is any reference to anything other than L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe cases.

Your Honor suggested -- and I thought that I heard you correctly -- that evidenc with regard to other claims actually fi against Epstein would be relevant an material. And clearly it is. A(::)

THE COURT: I believe id was those cases filed by Mr s or any claims that were II st Epstein by a client represent

Tell me G11 7 G think that the aggregate c e knot having anything to do with Mr ards' representation or tein firm's representation -- because Berger, I think, was involved in some espects as well.

MR. SCAROLA: Co-counsel.

THE COURT: Solely as co-counsel -- I believe that to be the case -- are you suggesting that the aggregate cases would be relevant?

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. And they are relevant for multiple reasons.

Your Honor will recall the chart that was put up by opposing counsel that attempted to summarize all of those things Alc that Jeffrey Epstein could have reasonably relied upon to -- I guess what they're saying now is mistakenly conclude that was part of this Ponzi schem among those things that are re a ed in that chart were Brad Edward for example -- and this A;%n \$1, one is to, example -- to take y from pilots about what was g private plan three client not pas rs on the planes. on Jeffrey Epstein's all of Brad • knowledged that they were

And that rad hey were not passengers Epstein's private jets. is true. ' clients It is true that all acknowledged that on Jeffrey But both the Florida Evidence Code and Federal Rules of Evidence expressly permit -- the federal rules are very explicit about this - expressly admit the introduction of evidence

A÷f ocused k of error, if we go beyond that ded limitation, is significant. And i to make sure that we, again, are on the elements of the claim. whether it be for compensatory damages associated with Mr. ' claim or And punitive damages associated with Mr. ' claim, we are still dealing with a malicious prosecution claim, solely a

with regard to other child molestations in any child molestation claim.

THE COURT: So let's talk about that for a minute. Because again, what I don't want this to turn into is a case testing whether or not Epstein was an alleged serial child molester. It would not, in my view, pass muster legally, and I don't want t this case twice.

I think that we should be ely circumspect when it deals - e are dealing with global iss olestation of graphic description types of alleged molestation, exc w re we are dealing with claims e been brought on behalf of those re a nted by Mr.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

malicious prosecution claim.

And so to deviate from that direction would be precarious and concerning to the Court, in particular, because when we're dealing with issue of probable cause, we're only Mr. Epstein's stated intent, but I AS V focusing on -- as I've made clear -- not fully intend to allow circumstantial 1 7 evidence, inclusive of the invocation the Fifth Amendment relevant quest pertaining to the plaintiff counter-plaintiff's, mo sely -- Mr. ' positi to plain to the jury why -- or to the why Mr. Epstein brought this what were the true motivating rs concerning same.

0 w this to intrude into ations of serial molestation is erous and is concerning.

You may proceed.

MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. I acknowledge the legitimacy of the Court's concern. And I recognize the fact that the Court, appropriately, under Rule 403, must balance probative value against prejudice.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

However, as soon as Mr. Epstein takes the position, as he has in this demonstrative exhibit that --

THE COURT: Show me where, please.

MR. SCAROLA: Let's go through these and -- let me zoom in. On this top line are IS all of those circumstances subsequent to 4/9/09 when became a me of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, wh Counsel says gave raise to a r suspicion that Edwa a knowing participant in the Ponz and was ti using fabricated cl cs support that Ponzi scheme.

Let's t one at a time.

Jane ve to unseal the non-pro ion agreement.

(Now, the non-prosecution agreement is essly referenced in the complaint, as is he Crime Victims' Rights Act case.

So if Jeffrey Epstein is going to say efforts to unseal the non-prosecution agreement contributed to his reasonable belief that was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme, we need

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4÷Am endment and attorney-client THE COURT: lets stop there for a minute and 1 ocus ourselves on the motion that fore the Court. It's a motion mine, particularly -- from this s perspective -- important as it tes to the invocation of the Fifth privilege, whatever that might amount to be.

explain what the non-prosecution agreement was.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SCAROLA: And what the

non-prosecution agreement was, was a deal 46 6C that Jeffrey Epstein entered into with the federal government to avoid criminal prosecution for the molestation of (::) v approximately 40 children. dwa ds was challenging the validity o non-prosecution agreement b a Crime Victims' Rights Act cas referenced in the complaint.

If you ask Mr. Epstein -- or if you have asked Mr. Epstein a question regarding whether or not he was motivated to sue Mr. because in part of the move by

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Jane Doe through Mr. -- as I understand, Mr. has been counsel.

> MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. Pro bono counsel in that case for many years.

THE COURT: And you ask Mr. Epstein is it not true that you entered into this non-prosecutorial agreement because of X, and Z, I don't think there's a problem that.

In other words, if he ref es o answer the question, then I think be admitted.

A question of you are a serial child molestatio fail the 403 analysis in

MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. If I led the Court t ieve that that's what the ion was going to be, then I wasn't r unicating very well.

THE COURT: You have always communicated exceptionally well, so it could very well be my error.

So tell me what is the intent, then - do you recall the questions that have been asked, if any, regarding this particular NPA

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

that he failed to respond to at this point?

MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. I can't recall those offhand. What I was addressing was not specifically a Fifth Amendment issue, although, I recognize the fact that this motion is supposed to be focused on the Fifth Amendment. But Your Honor, I tho raised the question about whether we wer going to get into the existenc- ther claims besides the claims o E.W. and Jane Doe. And that's s responding to. I was point' 4oCu;::S at there is absolutely n b avoid getting into the existence o tl se other claims, because Epstein raised those issues in the aint he filed against Brad . he is relying upon those circumstances virtue of the presentation that is being made during this hearing to suggest to Your

÷y

Honor, One of the reasons why I had probable

cause to believe that this was a maliciously

prosecuted case against me was because of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

in moving to set aside the non-prosecution agreement.

So if that's what he's telling you he intends to prove, I'm simply pointing out to Your Honor -- and I can go through this - and it's going to come up in almost every one of these elements. While I understandt the Court's concern about trying to nar the focus, the door has been blown o hinges by Mr. Epstein's own co

And his lawyers have t -t door and thrown it out the w en they argued to Your Hono ne of the reasons why we believe —Jeffrey Epstein reasonably b e that Brad was a knowing par ant in the Ponzi scheme, is because owed to set aside the rosecution agreement after he joined

Now, many aspects of this timeline --

THE COURT: I have to say, I really don't understand the connection, but I will give Mr. Link the opportunity to explain it to me.

I understand it either, but this is their exhibit. They are the ones that are saying this was the basis for our making this determination, or for Mr. Epstein reasonably believing that Brad was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme.

THE COURT: Just for the record, ther was never a malicious prosecution claim filed by Epstein --

MR. LINK: There was not, Honor.

THE COURT: Abuse of p laim?

MR. LINK: Yes.

THE COURT: at the record is clear.

MR. SCAROLA )Luse of process claim.

MR. LINkid)And, I may just po Your Honor, if

THE COURT: No, not right now, please.

will have amble opportunity to rebut.

MR. LINK: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: I don't want to get into what we did this morning.

MR. SCAROLA: So all I am responding to -- and maybe this isn't the appropriate time to do that -- is the idea that we are

4 5 6 7 8 9 able to sanitize this case to the point where we are not going to be talking about a variety of other claims that were being prosecuted by other plaintiffs' lawyers working together with Brad and not going to be talking about the Crime Victims' Rights Act case, because as Your Honor has A repeatedly acknowledged, motive is goi C n be very significant.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 And we intend to prove th Je frey Epstein's motive in filing owingly false claims against Br -- his motive was to extor into abandoning or c Compromising the rights of h' s, and abandoning his efforts thr the Crime Victims' Rights Act cas Norset a4/44ent. aside the non-prosecution

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 He had an enormous economic motive, if ÷e could limit his civil exposure, and he had a tremendous motive, in terms of the criminal liability he faced. And the way he chose to address that was, I'm going to make an example out of Brad, who has taken a leadership role among all these

plaintiffs' lawyers, and I'm going to target one of these victims. I'm going to sue them both, and I'm going to show them what happens when you try to take on this billionaire. That's what he was trying to do. Plain and simple. And we are entitled, I respectfully suggest, to be able to prov just how big a motive that was, stake. what's

THE COURT: I'm not in dis with you. ent

When this went on response to Mr. Lin is presentation as to Mr. Epstein's sons were what? Was that this ca tP ned around directly to harm potent r. Epstein and provide Mr. Edw with the motivation. So I'm not sagreement with you. )b d, my first

0 A÷c ertainly one of the more pertinent things The only thing I am concerned with - that I am concerned with for today's hearing, again, relates back to how far we are going to permit the jury to hear, or how much we are going to permit the jury to hear as it relates to these other claims.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

onor. MR. LINK: That's correction, Your

THE COURT: -- in Judge Marra's court, assuming he's still the Judge on the case.

MR. SCAROLA: Just to clarify that point, if I could.

Now, as you further described it - again, subject to Mr. Link's rebuttal - there is no way around the fact that the NPA is going to become a part of this trial.

As I have indicated earlier, and the reason for my question was to ensure that my understanding was correct that the princip4 reason -- or a principle reason Mr. Eps continues to invoke the Fifth Amendm because of the pendency of this case, correct?

MR. LINK: General the pending of the case --

THE CO potential of a criminal -- u her criminal exposure if the NPA get oked -- or whatever the nology is --

MR. SCAROLA: The non-prosecution agreement is an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. It extends immunity to Mr. Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators 414 4.1.1\\y for crimes committed in the Southern District of Florida.

So even if per chance the Crime IS' 0 Victims' Rights Act case were to go way) tomorrow, which seems highly u Mr. Epstein will still have right to assert a Fifth Amendmen ege. And I acknowledge that. av t challenged the validity of his h endment assertion.

What we about is not his right to as it's the consequences of that as

( ,11M COURT: And to respectfully bring ack into focus on what's before the ourt, generally, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment -- and bringing out the fact that the NPA in some form or fashion, because of it being a reason for the invocation of the Fifth Amendment -- is going to be mentioned during the trial.

There's no way around it.

MR. LINK: We understand that, Judge.

THE COURT: Fine.

The question that I am going to pose to you and Mr. Scarola now is how far we are going to go with that agreement and where the 403 analysis has to focus. So -- ?

esolve plaintiffs' claims. MR. SCAROLA: r Apn'or, I believe that it is unavo hat the jury be informed as the non-prosecution agreement i t would be our intention to enter i o evidence. They need to stand what the Crime Victims' Rights What they don't need to do is to the legitimacy of 40 other

Now, some of Mr. Epstein's (sic) clients -- in fact, I think all three of them -- are identified in the non-prosecution agreement. So Mr. Epstein,

(:.(1 1

opportunity. Not now. When you have your

Mr. Scarola.

MR. LINK: Champing at AS ), Your Honor.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as part of the non-prosecution agreement, agrees to compensate each of these 40 people under specific circumstances. And that gets us into a discussion as to why the federal lawsuit was filed. And this is something that we have referenced briefly in argument before Your Honor earlier. But

THE COURT: I want to stay on thisO subject for just a moment, if I coul that is, tell me why you belie t the motivation that Mr. Epstein e had to file this suit was rela or is related to this Jane Doe mov unseal the NPA. Explain that to ain, please.

MR. S es, sir.

I thin t t, obviously, motive can only be en through circumstantial nce if the defendant is not confessing. not only is Mr. Epstein not confessing, e's refusing to give considerable relevant testimony because of his assertion of both the attorney-client privilege in the absence of any assertion of advice of counsel defense, as we have already established, and his Fifth Amendment privilege. So we need

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to prove what his motive is circumstantially.

And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that Mr. is lead counsel in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case. He clearly knows, because he's a participant in that case. He has intervened in the case. He knows thatI S the consequences of that Crime Victims'( Rights Act case could be that he los immunity that he negotiated wi c U.S. Attorney's Office.

So being able to p A aside as the primar ova force in the Crime Victims' ct case is obviously a reasonable cclb ion from those C circumstanc . But it goes beyond that, because ct threats were ds by Jeffrey Epstein. made to

0 THE COURT: So the suggestion, I guess, Ai:4:s?'from lo the defense, the malicious prosecution claim of Mr. Epstein is that he found it necessary to file the lawsuit -- strike that.

> Yeah. He found it necessary to file the lawsuit against Rothstein, and

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

L.M., because he felt that by doing this unsealing, it was motivation, it was exposure, it was public information so as to allegedly gin up these three claims held by the three plaintiffs with the initials and the Jane Doe.

MR. SCAROLA: Yes.

THE COURT: On the other hand, indicated, the reverse effect taking would be Mr. the ill motive was the fact file this lawsuit again others -- was becau exposed, if you . as o S late ' position in fact - and to and pstein was being

> MR. S : oor choice of words.

THE COURT) Pardon me?

MR OLA: Poor choice of words.

was a joke, Your Honor. A bad one.

TEE COURT: That's okay. I understand.

So that's essentially what I'm understanding count -- point - counterclaim.

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir.

My only point is, we can't avoid getting into that. As soon as they raise A

A'e 4 icause only, is But I don't think it's necessary to parse out is this relevant to probable it relevant to malice only. If it's relevant to one or the other it comes in.

it, we can make the counterpoint. We can explain why it was done. And the same thing is true with regard to everything else that is on this list. The claim for \$50 million --

THE COURT: I'm not sure that they even have raise it for it to be relevant.

MR. SCAROLA: I don't think they d because we have an obligation to pro case. We get to prove malice.

THE COURT: Well, I am 4 t lking about probable cause.

MR. SCAROLA: 4 \\ p able cause. Yes, sir. I agree. an rove probable cause. We can prove . Epstein knew. We can prove his m i s, and we can prove malice as part roving probable cause.

THE COURT: And the 40 individuals that you are contending and that's the subject to this NPA are all minors?

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor.

And what the federal law says is \$150,000 per molestation. That's what the federal law says. And what the NPA says is if these claim are brought pursuant to the federal statute, you are not going to contest your liability.

Now, what they did contest is whet it's 150,000 per molestation, or 150 So once you pay the 150,000 yo molest these kids as many t' you want to.

THE COURT:

MR. SCAROLA es.' So that was an issue. But s he reason why -- and the jury is goi need to hear this -- why does Br wards file a 256-page -- or 256 raph -- whatever it is -- or 256

THE COURT: 254-page --

MR. SCAROLA: Whatever it is. Why does he file this lengthy federal case? Was that really as an effort to try to gin up these cases for purposes of participating in a Ponzi scheme, or was there an independent

legitimate basis for doing what he did?

THE COURT: Of course, the interesting part of that is from the timeline, the complaint filed -- the federal complaint, 234-page federal complaint was filed after the settlement of three cases. thidnkA

so. MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. I don't

MR. LINK: No. THE COURT: I thought tha

settlement was 7/6 -- I'm s /14 was reading '09. The 7 7/6/10. That was m rr

MR. SCAROLA And you r ball -- we have already made refere e o the timing of the filing of that ral case that we were obliged to f ' 30-Swithin r She was about irthday and it needed to be filed within that time. two years after L.W. coming of to celebrate her 20th

THE COURT: There were statute of limitations issues. Again, another counterpoint.

Absolutely.

I am only suggesting to Your Honor that it is very difficult to be able to say as a blanket matter, I am not going to let in evidence of these other claims.

THE COURT: Again, I am not taking that position yet. What I'm saying is that on matter-by-matter basis and we are us Mr. Epstein's timeline and those per ine t events, which are noted therei f there were questions that relate PA that were asked of Mr. Epste e did not answer based on Fif ent grounds, the inclination question by in, subject claiman ithout reading would be to allow that to the issue of multiple f you will, the 40 minors that epresented to the Court.

0 s tandpoint of both sides, trying to balance But again, when we look at it from the this as best I can under 403, on the one hand we have Mr. taking -- strike that Mr. Epstein taking the position that doing what was done by Jane Doe through Mr. as counsel was an attempt to

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

publicize and to sensationalize the circumstances so as to increase the value of at least the claims that were held by the Rothstein firm.

MR. SCAROLA: Which I think is what every lawyer is supposed to do within the bounds of propriety, obviously. But our j is to maximize the value of our clients filS" 0 claims.

C.)

THE COURT: And on the of de of the coin is Mr. t k' position that the impetus -- or us for filing the complaint at ba a exposure of Mr. Epstein, onc to the ignominy of having to fa ublicity of a non-prosecu 1 agreement where there were admissi where there were agreements s not admissions -- but agreements limited the prosecution of him as it elates to multiple claimants or multiple potential victims.

So again, my ruling on that is if there are questions that have to do with this issue, globally they will be allowed to be asked subject to further argument as it

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

+le have the right MR. S : et me just clarify one point, and a is, we have been focusing on questio at have already been asked of pstein. Obviously, we have the right all Mr. Epstein as an adverse witness. to put him in that witness chair in front of the jury and to ask him questions that Your Honor has considered to be appropriate that may not have been asked at the time of his deposition.

relates to the multiplicity of the numerous victims that we are dealing with here as alleged.

Same as it goes with this 234-page federal complaint. If there were any questions that were asked of Mr. Epstein where he refused to answer on Fifth A(56Ar Amendment grounds, I find that the (::)S" information would be relevant. Ther for, his failure to answer would be uld be able to be utilized if such 'ons were asked of him regarding page federal le r complaint filed on cl a f L.M. by Mr.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 don't consider nor do I understand Your Honor to be ruling that we would only be limited to asking questions already asked of him in his deposition. We would be permitted to ask him any question relevant and material to the claims that he has made against Mr. , and that -- has been announced we know he will be invokin Fifth Amendment right.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 THE COURT: With the cave understanding that any reas sensitive type of question that i to be V construed as graphi sonably construed as graphic go\* to u o d be run by the court illik7e e questions about global cond first by wa Cio a proffer.

17 18 MR MAROLA: I understand the Court's rn. And I --

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OTEE COURT: I am very, very cognizant ÷f the fact that we are going to be spending a significant amount of time both pretrial and at trial. And I do not want to get into a circumstance where we are going to be taking liberties at the expense of ensuring that a fair trial is provided to all.

MR. SCAROLA: I am happy to make the commitment to the Court, because I understand your concern, and I recognize the sensitivity of these issues.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCAROLA: I will make a commitment to the Court that we will proffer in advan any question that we reasonably anticip will invoke a Fifth Amendment privil

THE COURT: All right. ove on then. Again, let's refocus kIto some of these issues that are d before the Court.

MR. LINK: Honor, can I just clarify, bec on't want that to untouched a s this. May I, Your Honor? leave

T : Briefly.

LINK: Thank you. Very briefly. 0 I want to be clear that we have not eard the questions, so I can't tell you, without knowing what the question is, whether we will raise the Fifth Amendment or not. My commitment to the Court was the questions that were asked already were not going to change the assertion of the Fifth.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: I think that was a caveat to Mr. Scarola's recitation.

MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Again, it is with the same caveat that I explained earlier, and that is, I am going to have both sides provide me with questions that well, really it would start with Mr. and Mr. Scarola root providing your side with questions - ch as ed hat he will ready been specific questions that were Mr. Scarola in good faith b be asking at trial that subject to invocati e Fifth Amendment ait ' and/or attorney- nt 'privilege or any other privil f that matter.

All I' e are Fifth Amendment and attorne ent privilege. There may have a Fourteenth amendment or another dment.

MR. SCAROLA: Those questions will be elicited through Mr. Epstein's deposition, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So what I'm trying to - again, give you global guidance as to how the Court intends to rule on some of these 1 2 3 4 5 6 issues, but at the same time reserving the ability to be able to review the specific questions that, with the Court's global guidance today, are still subject to debate as to whether or not they are going to be asked.

7 8 9 10 11 12 For example, Mr. Scarola may have a 41IA he has IS' 0 culled through the testimony, he int ds to ask -- strike that -- he inten •ublish before the jury by way of d utilization. list of 30 questions that, after

13 14 15 16 17 If you find th r all of those questions are o e e parameters the court has pr ed o you today, then it will be inc t upon you to bring those before nd to --

18 19 LINK: Judge, I understand. That's it procedure.

20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: -- and I will entertain further argument or I may not entertain further argument. I may just rule on it pursuant to the law that I have and what I perceive to be the appropriate rules of evidence.

1 2 MR. LINK: Understood. That procedure is very clear to me.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: So let's go back now -- I want to give Mr. Scarola his opportunity is there anything else specifically that we need to talk about now on Fifth Amendment issue? Because most of these other exhibi matters, we can handle those we can O handle them today, if you'd like to. Bu we don't need to handle them in co tion with the Fifth Amendment is A

12 13 14 15 Things like massag 1 and messages from notepads in Ep omes, flight logs, things of don't really i lit e nature, really get into n Fifth Amendment issues. Acq't,

16 I NIE.) MR. L : We agree.

17 18 19 TB\$ JRT: So why don't you go ahead, . I want to give you an opportunity ebut.

20 21 22 23 24 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor asked if there were other specific matters relating directly to Fifth Amendment, and the financial discovery raises Fifth Amendment issues that need to be discussed.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

we get finish with Mr. Link's rebuttal on the global Fifth Amendment issues that we've dealt with thus far. Thank you.

MR. LINK: Okay, I'm going to pick up a couple of pieces of -- Your Honor, I just want to touch on a couple of pieces of the presentation, then I will go back to where want to go.

0 You asked about this timeline, d t doesn't say that it had anythi do with setting aside the NPA. Thi 7 ne says this: Jane Doe moved t e the NPA. And the reason that at ught Mr. Epstein's at io was because Mr. Doe already had it. They had a of the NPA, so why would they wa 91t' , to be unsealed?

THE COURT: For the same reasons that iscussed earlier -- Mr. Scarola was ather blunt about it -- and that is, that doing that will enhance the value of the claims made by the three pseudonym plaintiffs.

MR. LINK: Maybe.

that. But it also could inflame Mr. Epstein, potentially, as well. It also could provide Mr. Epstein with bona fide good faith motivation that he thought that this was resolved and now it's being opened up again, so I can see both sides.

MR. LINK: No question. That's what I!) takes us to the Fifth Amendment and what we're talking about. And that's thi Everything that was just discus ed as to do with the truth -- with the the allegations that are co in Epstein's complaint against M Ed d

What Mr. S ants to do and what Mr. they want allegat ?SSE t were in his deposition, is w the world that those untrue.

Sr O

COURT: Which allegations?

LINK: The allegations Mr. Epstein

iled against Rothstein and THE COURT: That the allegation as it relates to the claims by the three pseudonym plaintiffs?

MR. LINK: No, sir. THE COURT: Start again. I am not

following you.

MR. LINK: So there was a lawsuit filed by Mr. Epstein. He sues Rothstein and he sues

THE COURT: And L.M.

MR. LINK: And L.M. In that claim, if 46cplaintiffs Mr. represented CS you read it fairly, you will not find an allegation that says that the three O fabricated their claims. What ou ill find, Your Honor, when you t is that it says that those three were used to entice investors to in other cases.

They also s n this complaint, very clearly, tha os ree cases -- those three cases (:P' <sup>t</sup> value -tir° t the legitimacy of filing -- the value. value of them the

0 THE COURT: That's not what it says.

A÷P aragraph H, which I will read for a third time says, quote, Rothstein and the litigation team -- which I'm assuming that included Mr. -- knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following

reasons.

MR. LINK: Yes. I agree with that.

And I think any questions about that - right -- any questions about that would go to whether that statement is true. But it doesn't say -- it says they were weak. It doesn't say that they were ginned up. It doesn't say they were fabricated. ItC 0 doesn't say any of the words that Mr. Scarola told id that they should have said, it follows paragraph. And if 17 1 \$500 million, it s that these c w en 't worth \$500 million. you it said. known -- r what I the \$5 '1 on-settlement to it to the ey should have known

But it o not say anywhere in this complai at Mr. fabricated those cases in 2008. It doesn't say that here. It doesn't say it anywhere.

I absolutely agree -- I absolutely agree it says they were used by Rothstein to attract investors. Rothstein lied about those cases.

Mr. candidly told us in his deposition that Rothstein used his cases -- 4 MR. LINK: The point is this. What

5 6 7 8 9 Mr. Scarola wants to try to the jury is this case right here. He wants the jury to hear the case that settled, these three folks tS get on the stand and say that they were 0 physically abused when they were min rs.

10 11 12 13 And if that is true -- that's w e tells us -- plaintiff s y proving the truth of the claims, ght on behalf of them.

14 15 16 17 18 If he does if he proves their underlying c s, e now has lack of probable ca a It's a disconnect, because lack of able cause has to do with ds' (sic) state of mind at the time.

19 THE COURT: or Epstein?

20 21 MR. LINK: Epstein. We have all done it four times.

22 23 24 25 Epstein. Epstein's state of mind, and only his state of mind. I am competent if this case was tried -- this is the Epstein versus Rothstein and -- that

Mr. ' cases -- and fabricated claims about them in settlements.

THE COURT: And the point is what?

;:.i4)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. will get on the stand, and he would tell the jury all the reasons why he did what he did. And they may believe him. But whether he had a legitimate reason or not isn't relevant to whether Epstein had probable cause.

THE COURT: Let's focus on the Fifth Amendment issues. itco

MR. LINK: Well, that's why important, because if you aske pstein a question -- if you asked estion that goes something lik s Did you touch E.W.? And sanitize t put anything graphic. Did yo uc E.W.? what does that be relevant here. He relevant to this case Judge. He asserts the Fifth. question - asserts the (indica s that relevant to the reasons in his about why he decided to sue Rothstein A nd ? How can it be relevant to that?

> THE COURT: If you asking me, as opposed to being rhetorical, I can answer it simply.

4 5 6 THE COURT: His strike, if you will, is a preemptive one by virtue of filing this lawsuit.

7 8 MR. LINK: That could be his motive. agree.

9 0 THE COURT: That's a simple ans er.)

10 11 12 MR. LINK: Well, but that motive, not probable cause. motive ties into the ment. the

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: nd. But the plaintiff in the is "ous prosecution claim, Mr. E s has the ability, through direct and r stantial evidence, to be able to on a case as to what was stein's reason. Why did he do it? To radict Mr. Epstein's contentions.

20 21 22 23 And, in my respectful view, one of those motives -- if you're asking me - which you have -- and you suggested that you have --

24 25 MR. LINK: I have. Go ahead. I need teaching all the time.

THE COURT: This is pre-settlement, the filing of this lawsuit at bar, okay?

MR. LINK: Yes.

THE COURT: It's not teaching. It just a common sense logical thought that the reason why you bring a lawsuit like this that constitutes somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 pages where you are claiming after this -- shortly after this law firm blew up --

MR. LINK: Correct.

THE COURT: -- and everybody isC O scrambling; nobody knows what's g on; federal agents are raiding ces; including, I presume, M office --

° y MR. LINK: Yes. Sh took the Epstein case boxes.

THE CO s is filed in 2009. The number is 4 8 -- gives you an idea of how many fo sure cases we had back then. he bottom line is it's -- I don't know t's on this timeline -- the lawsuit is oted as to when it was filed.

MR. LINK: 12/7/09.

THE COURT: 12/7/09. Rothstein is arrested on 12/1/09. A week later (sic).

MR. LINK: A week before.

THE COURT: A week before. Exactly.

Excuse me. A week before. Razorback complaint is filed 11/20/09. Things are, what I would, again, perceive, if you are asking me --

MR. LINK: I am.

THE COURT: -- to be at the zenith of stress and tension.

MR. LINK: I agree.

0 ) THE COURT: Here is something t (1 at s filed that, at least arguably c suggested, was trying to ge at his weakest moment.

MR. LINK: How ou 'f for purposes of today I agree wi ou hat that was the motive? I a to agree with you. Let's say, I u Honor, you are exactly right. purposes of today that was the What does that have to do -- this he whole Fifth Amendment -- what does hat have to do with this (indicating)?

THE COURT: With probable cause.

MR. LINK: Probable cause. Because here is what probable cause --

THE COURT: Did he have probable cause to file this lawsuit when he did?

1 2 MR. LINK: When he had the most evil of intent.

3 THE COURT: You said it, not me.

4 MR. LINK: Only for purposes of today.

5 6 THE COURT: You asked me what my perception could be --

7 MR. LINK: Yes, sir.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: and what this jury' 43 perception, more importantly, could Because again, any answers tha given by this Court are what I perce -d upon 35 years of doing this wor a trial lawyer and a trial judge, ng hundreds of jurors and how t d go about their work.

16 17 "S ) MR. L4 ;.) : You're older than I am. I didn't that was possible.

18 19 THE COURT: So that's where I think my e of reference is.

20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINK: And I appreciate it. And I appreciate it. And I'm agreeing with you, when you look at the element with what you just described it could potentially be evidence of malice. According to the jury instruction and the case law, is it cannot

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be evidence of probable cause.

Here is one of the disconnects. I heard Mr. Scarola tell you the two statements he wants to focus on. What he is telling you in a subtle way is that he wants to have a defamation case Publication of two statements, falsity. And then he saidI S i(C ) to you, then the burden shifts, which does in a defamation case. He used defamation words: truth with go• tive. This is not a defamation ca

It doesn't matter, doesn't matter if they have all th ce in the world that they would won, they would have had a landsl i ory if the Epstein versus Roth and case was tried. It does ake any difference, because the has to be in December 2009 was there gh information?

I'm not saying, Judge, if you were the lawyer if you would have brought it, or whether I would have brought it, but it was brought. And the question is, was there enough information available that a reasonable person would -- could have

1 reasonably brought this claim when they did?

2 3 4 5 6 The timing can be suspect. The motive can be suspect. The malice can be suspect. But if there's enough information and logical inferences, then you don't have a failure of probable cause.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And the reason that's important underIS the Fifth Amendment is if these three 0 plaintiffs come in and testify, then C.) essentially what we have -- we rying the very original case that ed in 2008, because I have to oss-examine them on all of thei 1 and their damages and thei a lth conditions, and whether they e prostitution before and all of e ther things that would have been tr n that case.

18 19 20 olestation cases. ( o 40 other le, we then if we open are going to the door to have 43 sexual

21 22 23 24 25 +11 THE COURT: I'm not suggesting we are doing that. Again, this is not the work of Mr. Scarola. This is not the work of Mr. This is not the work of you or Ms. Rockenbach. This is the work of

Mr. Epstein --

MR. LINK: I agree it is.

THE COURT: -- making these allegations in subparagraph H, 1 through 3 -- some weird tiny numbers. H, 1 through 3. He's, with all due respect, stuck with these allegations. He's stuck with this lawsuit He's stuck with the claims that are 0 contained therein and the allegation (LPth t are contained therein.

MR. LINK: Absolutely. 100 percent. But what tuck with? That's the question. Ar e stuck trying this case, Judge are we stuck trying to prove to a information% \$ existed, that we had a Lrb reasona asis to bring a p eding? based on the civil

0 Because that's what it talks about. It oesn't say what claim did you bring? What count did you bring? What statements did you bring? It is a civil proceeding.

÷1

THE COURT: Right now, though, Mr. Link, we're concentrating on the Fifth Amendment issues. There is not a motion in

limine in front of me at this juncture as to the 40 other -- or the 40-in-total alleged victims. There is not a motion in front of me regarding how far we are going to go with regard to the trial --

MR. LINK: Fair enough Judge.

THE COURT: -- in regard to the claim of the three litigants represented by 0 Mr.

C

MR. LINK: Your Honor is rcent right. I appreciate you in me to answer some of the ques at were on my mind. And I apprec

Where we wo like to go next, Your Honor, if th has time -- or we can take it up x time -- are those things that we the exhibit list and witness liecr

O One of the the rulings so far, is will E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe be taking the stand, because that's part of the motion in limine, what we have been talking about. things we don't know, based

÷n

THE COURT: Are they listed as witnesses?

MR. LINK: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Have they been deposed?

MR. LINK: They have not been deposed in this case.

THE COURT: I presume they are listed as witnesses.

MR. LINK: They are listed as witnesses.

> ) MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I'm s C y --

MR. LINK: Were they depos this case?

> o4ct MR. SCAROLA: One \\ e i" was deposed.

MR. LINK: I'm \\rr

MR. SCAROLA ne of them was deposed in this case cently.

MR. L I thought that was -- II, yes. Ytpe right. Sorry about that. One olAce two.

0 MR. SCAROLA: And the only one noticed be deposed.

K.

MR. LINK: And that's an issue that you told us to come back to you on, Judge, because if they are going to be called -- I don't know if they are -- but if they are going to be called, then I would like the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

opportunity to depose those two.

THE COURT: What I said somewhat off-the-cuff, but not as articulate as the Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Liabos versus Harman -- L-I-A-B-O-S. ,c,\<C Harman, H-A-R-M-A-N -- 215 So.2d 487, was what I intended earlier, just so that we a all clear on the issue of probable caus least as it relates in this case in relatively quick word search.

It says, It should be oted that the lack of probable ca mixed question of law and I will omit the citation that to say, when the facts relied on to lack of probable cause are in disp a their existence is to be determi y the jury as a question of Their legal effect, on the other is determined -- to be determined by he Court, but only after these facts are admitted to found -- are admitted or found to be true.

MR. LINK: Yes. That's right. We are in complete agreement, which is, if the facts we say we relied on in bringing this

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

claim -- if there's a dispute about one of those facts and whether we rely on it, then we would have a jury trial, and the jury would determine whether we relied or not. The Court would then take the 10 pieces of information that was relied on and decide if that was enough.

You may agree it is, you may agree is not, Judge. It's going to be you

THE COURT: Let's go back o e Fifth Amendment issues and deal w' e now.

You have gotten my a rulings on the issues. I am g review the individual quest' t at are intended to be reasked or t lished by the counter-pla at trial as it relates lr. Epstein's invocation of the Amendment and the related privileges he is claiming. I don't want to be amstrung by this record as only dealing with Fifth Amendment. Anything that's in his deposition that has been objected to on privilege grounds.

MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. We appreciate it.

THE COURT: Thanks.

What I would like to then get into next are some of these exhibits. If we can deal with those now, let's go ahead and do that. We will use the next hour or so to take care of those, please.

bench, Your Honor? I approach the e c' t

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. ROCKENBACH: I have a Mr. ' amended exhibi And those items that are hi -- some of y mentioned - which Your Honor ha this would be ( rely d Yo paragraph B -- or item B in th i d omnibus motion in limine on p ee 22. Mr. Epstein has raised both an erted both relevance, 90.401, he gatekeeper function of the Court, -ative value, prejudicial effect of A4e90.403.

> Some of the examples that Your Honor had mentioned, I think, was a massage table, which was number 59. But if we start at the front, there is an order confirmation from Amazon for the purchase of a book entitled

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ail <sup>A</sup> mi?eit hat Mr. And th re some articles, which leads m y quickly -- and I think we can bly -- I hate to jump, but I think, d on Your Honor's ruling, it's possible Scarola will agree to item C in the motion in limine, which relates to derogative adjectives when referencing my client.

"Slave Craft: Workbook for Erotic Slaves and their Owners." Completely irrelevant, prejudicial, has zero probative value whatsoever to do with the malicious prosecution action.

The same is true -- and I have highlighted all of these -- they are reall grouped, Your Honor. Some of them are so outrageous when you read them, su the erotic book, sex offender rations, massage table, school recor ear books of Jane Doe and -- unide fi year books just of Palm Flight logs, evidence of cont At ti e ns to Palm Beach Gardens PoliG k tment.

Based on the rulings that you have made this morning, I believe that Mr. Scarola

probably would agree not to refer to Mr. Epstein as convicted child molester, billionaire pedophile or the like.

THE COURT: Well, billionaire pedophile, I agree is subject to argument. But convicted child molester, Mr. Scarola.

MR. SCAROLA: That is an accurate description of Mr. Epstein. It is a (::.; : It' description, which I believe appears in ome of the newspaper articles that stein alleges he relied upon to f asonable belief that Edw c, participant in these this Ponzi scheme.

THE guilty? ACIQ7' he take a plea of

MR : Yes. He entered a plea ilty to two felonies. He is a r stered sex offender here in --

THE COURT: I just want to make sure it was a guilty plea, as opposed to a nolo or --

MR. SCAROLA: No. It was a guilty plea, Your Honor.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

with the federal government, he was required to plead guilty to two state court felonies.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger, did you want to comment on that?

MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, Your Honor. Just for a point of clarification, neither of the counts that Mr. Epstein pled guiltyS to are, quote, those that suggest that a child molester. It was procuring CI) underage for prostitution. Th- h count.

So the suggestion counter-plaintiff t molester, there 'no basis in the guilty plea entered. s somehow a child

Now, h i a registered sex offender subject 403 analysis. Perhaps Counsel be able to go there. But there's no ence to support, based on the documents A÷a nd on the guilty plea, that he's a child molester. He simply didn't plead guilty to anything factually related to that.

> THE COURT: Tell me exactly what he pled guilty to.

4 5 6 MR. GOLDBERGER: -- Your Honor, so there's no mistake. Solicitation for prostitution, procuring someone under the age of 18 for prostitution.

7 8 made it a felony, correct? MR. SCAROLA: Three someones, which

9 10 11 12 0 MR. GOLDBERGER: Yeah. Solicitation of prostitution requires three in als before it goes from a misde o a felony.

13 14 TER COURT: s under the age -- alleged vict der the age of 18?

15 16 17 MR. GO : That's the other count that he ple lty to. Solicitation of prostit of someone under the age of 18.

18 19 20 The solicitation for prostitution, in r to make that a felony it requires hree separate incidents.

21 22 23 24 But none of those suggest factually in any way the facts that he was a child molester. That's the point that I think my co-counsel is trying to make.

document, if I can --

THE COURT: Sure.

the term that was used.

MR. GOLDBERGER: And that's simply not factually correct.

THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Scarola?

MR. SCAROLA: Since we are dealing with this in the context of Fifth Amendment assertions --

AA r

THE COURT: No, we are dealing wit c ri this as a matter of a portion of the omn bus motion in limine.

MR. SCAROLA: Then I dpt1 ^t Ere any further comment.

THE COURT: Thefobj ion is sustained. The motion is gr d.

As I un a it in reviewing the case law re y the guilty plea would be admissi' The registration of sex der, I am going to need some additional br -fing on.

A4?..h. MS. ROCKENBACH: And believe me, I've done that, Your Honor. I'm not sure we can take it up today. But Mr. asked this Court to take judicial notice of it and we have supplied a response.

1 much material within the time --

2 MS. ROCKENBACH: I know.

3 4 5 I think we only addressed part C of the motion in limine. I hoped it would be quick, that's why I brought it up.

6 THE COURT: Off the record.

7 (A discussion was held off the record

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MR. SCAROLA: Getting back to the 0 ) ruling Your Honor just made, I certa C ly have no intention of referring o ffrey Epstein as a convicted chil er when his convictions did not ly relate to child molestation. solicitation of prostitution, mu solicitations for prostitution 1 be sure that I accurately f r to those things when I make refe rer4,No them

18 \<4C THE COURT: Of a minor? sfr

19 0 MR. SCAROLA: Of minors.

20 21 22 THE COURT: My understanding of the case law is clear that the plea is admissible.

23 24 25 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, maybe we should take that up. And I guess we are going to skip exhibits for a minute, because

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

along those lines. But where I thin Scarola is going is 90.610 of orida Evidence Code, which indica when Mr. Epstein is on the s can be asked, Have you ever been vi d of a felony? Yes. t e identity of that felony is no i ible, and that is part of the evil code. Pages 26 and 27 deal derogatory adjectives. That is with the A somewhaCI Y The answer,

So y not sure -- Your Honor is this has not been fully briefed, -use all that I anticipated were these wo very inflammatory terms.

Ae't THE COURT: The distinction, though, Ms. Rockenbach, that I would respectfully make -- and I'm not going to suggest that I'm an authority on this particular area - is that typically that question is asked for

this is too important to just gloss over.

THE COURT: I don't know if it has been briefed, at least in the briefs that --

MS. ROCKENBACH: Probably not the way we would like, but we don't want to paper the court.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

one of credibility, meaning, have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct.

THE COURT: If the answer is yes, the next question is how many times. If there is any falsity to any of those -- either those responses, then the requesting pa has the opportunity to provide the c and potentially the jury, with 1% counter-evidence typically • orm of certified copies of con 'o S.

A

MS. ROCKENBACH: correct.

THE COURT: at's a lot different than in this c e, here we are not necessarily (Lill' a about merely credibi What we're talking about what sense is at -- if not the heart, ainly near the center of the entire

In other words, but for the fact that -- at least, but for one of the facts that Mr. Epstein was convicted, the context of a malicious prosecution claim and the context of the contentions that would be

4 5 made by Mr. relating to the malicious prosecution claim would be that his conviction and his legal peril were part of his reasons for bringing the case against Mr.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

So this is not merely an issue of testing credibility of any given witness. As I understand it, just about any witn can be asked those questions. This U m¢ re of an issue of a fact central presentation of the case.

MS. ROCEENBACS:

Mr. Epstein's guilt as June 30th, 2008. His laws nst Mr. was December 7th So the guilty plea was entered at a year and a half before he sued Mr ards.

(And my concern with this under the achment part of the Florida Evidence ÷Code 610.5 -- I am going to quote from Ehrhardt, 2016 version, When a witness who testifies as a criminal defendant there is a danger -- we are not even a criminal defendant. We are not even trying the criminal case -- but there's danger that the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A÷c

onvicted of a crime? How MR. SCW 1 s. Rockenbach is incorrect tLt gee/would seek to admit this evidenc ely under 90.610, because under rovision of the evidence code, we d be restricted to, Have you ever been many times? I understand that entirely. And that's strictly a matter of credibility.

jury will consider the convictions, which are admitted, only to impeach as evidence the defendant is a bad person. The concern is greater when there are number of prior convictions.

But the point is, this is bad character evidence under 90.404. It's improper impeachment under 90.610. And we absol k oppose and object to the guilty plea com ng into evidence. It has no relev to the issue of why my client file cious prosecution action a e half after he pled guilty.

THE COURT: S arola.

However, the issue that we have the burden of proving is an issue of probable cause. And that involves, as we have

explained in great detail, an analysis of what Mr. Epstein knew. Part of what Mr. Epstein knew when he sued is that he was guilty of multiple crimes involving sexual activity with minors. That's part of what he knew. He pled guilty to that.

Now, he was asked in deposition, are the minors that you pled guilty Objection. Fifth Amendment. answer on the grounds that to end to incriminate me. He ref \\Y t identify those people.

4÷other through his own testimony he has foreclosed any further evidence coming from him. Now, he can get up and try to rebut adverse inference through something than his own testimony, because

> But if there's some independent source where he can suggest to the jury that this is not a proper inference to draw, he wasn't

> Well, we ca aw 'an adverse inference from that. adverse inference we can draw is tha t three people were L.M., E.W. an e Doe.

1 2 3 pleading guilty to crimes committed against these three young women -- these three children at the time -- then he can do that.

4 5 6 7 8 But it is relevant and material to the issue of probable cause because he admitted sexual offenses relating to children and refuses to identify in the context of this,A case who those children are.

9 10 11 12 So this isn't just propensity. Thi isn't bad character. This is ce that is directly material to an of this case that we are oblige p 0

13 14 15 So your Honor' e on was absolutely correct. There of er reasons why this comes in in c ext of this case.

16 Thank u sir.

17 18 NiStAWKENBAC red0S?fr H: Your Honor, may I

19 A'ek0O THE COURT: Sure.

20 21 22 23 24 MS. ROCKENBACH: In Mr. Epstein's deposition, March 17th, 2010, on page 103, Mr. Scarola asked him, line 23, "Who is the minor that you procured for prostitution?" And the answer is, "I do not know."

N -- both sides cited it. And it talks about what constitutes that probable cause. The public record. The public record. So my client can rely on two parts. Rely on firsthand knowledge or trustworthy information provided to him. That's the

issue.

MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. I do stand corrected. I am remembering now that that was his response. It wasn't the Fifth Amendment assertion. It changes none of the arguments I've just made.

THE COURT: I understand.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, the i of whether my client pled guilty to C prostitution with one minor or of snot relevant to what facts and ances - and that's the phrase o e cases reported -- what fa circumstances were known to Mr/ n!". when he filed his malicious prcas

And th Jight versus Yorco (phonetic) case. e event talked about it, but

( 1S71E COURT: I'm familiar with it.

0 MS. ROCKENBACH: I'm sure, Your Honor.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Razorback lawsuit. That's Mr. Bill Scherer, the Fort Lauderdale attorney being quoted by the newspaper as saying that Epstein -- Rothstein didn't act alone. It's the head of the South Florida FBI saying this was not a one-man show.

The issue of my client's plea of guild has nothing to do with his probable cau whether he believed Mr. was v connection with Mr. Rothstein fing up the claims.

THE COURT: One th' preciate the appellate courts do' ntly is writing somewhat extensi o the fluidity of motions in 1 nd the fact that until the court c gest at trial all of the facts tare being presented in putting things into context, it makes it what difficult, and recognizes the trial ''court's difficulty in dealing with some of these motions and some of these issues without context.

> But, in my respectful view, the flaw of the argument from its inception -- again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful -- but

the flaw in the argument is what I perceive to be a lack of recognition of, not only Mr. Epstein's rationale for filing his suit, but the focus, or lack thereof, on Mr. ' responsibility and burden -- a strict one and a strong one according to onerous -- used by one of the cases in being able to prove probable cause here. O

And Mr. Scarola has used in his briefing this building-block ap .. And I think the same type of an- picture can be utilized here wh ing about the motive. What was t pr le cause in actuality from t ou er-plaintiff he did? for Epstein doing what

dicated before, but didn't use nalogy, what you and Mr. Link provided he Court provides, not only building locks for potentially Mr. Epstein's probable cause, but likewise provides building blocks for Mr. . proving that he did not have probable cause.

And as far as the Court is concerned, if the guilty plea came after he filed suit, 1 2 3 4 then there might be some reasonable argument to separate it out and say, Judge, he hadn't even filed suit -- the suit was filed -- strike that.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

He hadn't pled guilty. The guilty plea came three years after he filed this suit for malicious prosecution, then it would probably be a relevancy argument that m may not win the day.

C.)

But when looking at it fro uilding block type of analysis, as n the most simplest terms, in• i g at both sides, which I it from mbent to do, as Mr. Scarola allu to, this is but one item that could b gu to have fueled Mr. Epstein o ave filed this lawsuit, thus making levant.

Now, the fluidity issue that I spoke t is, I'm willing to look at it, again, ÷ f there's a case on point that specifically says otherwise. But for purposes of this particular matter, the Court would find absent the production of a case that would say otherwise, that Mr. Epstein's guilty pleas -- I understand it's combined, so I'm

1 2 3 4 5 not suggesting there were more than one combined plea -- would be relevant, that it would be relevant to the issue of probable cause, and it would be relevant, potentially, to the issue of malice.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 And that, again -- with the Court looking at it from both sides and analyzinS it from both sides, it could be used by O Mr. Mr. Epstein. . But It could it provides be used by le c st some relevancy, defined again as or tending to prove or dis material fact. The material ct the element of probable cause a er aps malice.

15 16 So agai going to rule that they would be a ble.

17 Ne sue, please.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 pejorative comments. I understand that again, we are going to completely \<4ce;But entirely stay away from any type of sometimes things are said in the heat of deposition that would never be repeated at trial. Again, I'm certainly ordering that that not take place.

25 All right. We want to go back to some

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of these -- in the time that we have left, let's go back to some of these exhibits and see if we can work through them.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. We had identified and have highlighted, starting with number three, photographs and information of Mr. Epstein's homes, planes, automobiles. I'm not sure what relevan malicious that would prosecution have as to action. why he filed a C

THE COURT: Let's take e at a time.

Mr. Scarola, w r position?

MR. SCAROLA is omes and his automobiles v' ence with respect to his pecuniary c c stances, obviously a relevan ter when we are talking about a py ive damage claim.

OTHE COURT: Typically, though, net orth is what is considered, not necessarily unless it's impeachment, i.e., you'll have a picture of a home that he owns in the US Virgin Islands -- I think that he has some connection with one of those islands. And I'm not trying to

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

suggest anything as far as anything inappropriate. But I can conceive of this situation that if Mr. Epstein testifies that his net worth is X, comprised of A, B and C in large part, but you find an asset that he has not taken into account that's worth twice as much of his claimed net worth -- I

MR. SCAROLA: I know he has a mini net worth of --

C

I don't mean to interrupt but Mr. Epstein refuses to any evidence with regard to n, worth, so we are obliged to offe it stantial evidence of his net worth less and until those objections b Fifth Amendment grounds are overrul the basis that they are non-tes i 1. Honor,

(STHE y COURT: I think that's another motion. a subject

A'itok MS. ROCKENBACH: It is, Your Honor.

MR. SCAROLA: It is. But Your Honor should not be deciding this issue on the basis of the premise that we are going to get evidence from Mr. Epstein as to what Mr. Epstein's net worth is.

THE COURT: Agreed.

MR. SCAROLA: All he has told us is he's willing to stipulate to a net worth in excess of \$100 million. Well, it makes a difference as to whether it's 100 million, 200 million or a thousand million, that is, a billion dollars, or \$2 billion.

So even if we're left with a Fifth O Amendment assertion, we are back to \$ame issue that was that is, there raised by the d needs to be and dence independent of the Fift rent assertion that would allow th nce to be --

THE COURT: oing to cut you off. I'm going to e r n number three.

Number oo r is the Amazon receipt for the "SM A Realistic Introduction, Craft: Roadmap for Erotic itude-Principles, Skills and Tools" and ATI?h, 'Training Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners."

MR. SCAROLA: I never read it.

Your Honor, if I might --

MS. ROCKENBACH: It has no relevance,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 discussed, referenced, admitted. I think it's also a receipt from Amazon for the book, by the way. It's an order confirmation. If my memory serves correct, it's a receipt for the purchase of a book. It has nothing to do with malicious prosecution.

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (:54 IRY MR. SCAROLA: In fact, it does. C<sup>I</sup> might explain to Your Honor th ma y of the items that are on this list e being challenged, a vast majo them, were part of an appendix motion for summary judgment t Ffas not defended against by M s in.

16 17 18 THE CO Let me ask you this. Was this pa lar exhibit located prior to the stAliSsing filed by Mr. Epstein?

19 OMR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir.

20 21 A'ek MS. ROCKENBACH: It's the receipt located by whom?

22 23 THE COURT: By anybody. For the purposes of this case.

24 MR. SCAROLA: These are items --

THE COURT: Mr. Scarola.

1 2 discovered in a lawsuit that was filed prior to Mr. Epstein filing this suit?

3 MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. It was

4 5 6 7 8 discovered when a search warrant was executed by law enforcement shortly after the criminal allegations were made against Mr. Epstein before any of the civil lawsui were filed.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 P So law enforcement gets probabl C ca se to execute a search warrant on stein's home. And one of the thing found -- or many of the g that are described here are ring the course of the executio tha search warrant and formed proba c for the criminal charges aga s Mr. Epstein.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 re significantly, they formed asis for the civil lawsuits that were d on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, hat is, this is all evidence taken into account in substantiating the validity of the claims of these three particular victims of Mr. Epstein.

24 25 And all of these things are delineated in the motion for summary judgment that

1 2 3 Mr. Epstein does not defend against and voluntarily dismisses his case on the eve of the hearing.

4 5 6 7 8 Your Honor is well aware of procedurally he would have been obliged well in advance of the hearing to file his opposition to the motion for summary AQ IS Y judgment. He doesn't do that.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (::) Why is that significant in the ont xt of this case? Because, as we eard from the defense, they are challenge whether there 7)Ona fide termination of the alnst Mr. Mit e in favor of Mr. rd Was the abuse of process cla m' aced circumstance au to indicate a bona fide termina under such

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 How do we make that decision? Well, only way to make that decision is to ÷ alk about the motion for summary judgment, what supported the motion for summary judgment, and the fact that the motion for summary judgment was not opposed. A voluntary dismissal was taken, and the statute of limitations permitted to expire

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

without ever refiling those claims.

So as long as bona fide termination remains an issue, the motion for summary judgment is clearly relevant and material. And this is all part of the motion for summary judgment.

Many of these things, in addition to Act"r that, forms the basis for the explanati Mr. ' conduct when he was a m RRA, and demonstrate that he w abusing the process in any respect hile he was prosecuting these c He was pursuing very relev- material avenues of discovery to admissibl ce. calculated to lead

So tha (::6 's y full response to this.

The objection is sustained o grounds: on relevancy and also 403 ysis.

I will entertain the introduction outside the presence of the jury, if it becomes necessary.

The other concern I have is that, at best, it appears to sound like it may be impeachment on a collateral matter,

22

23

24

25

collateral to the summary judgment -- the

summary judgment motion was made and then

not challenged. For those reasons, I'm

going to sustain the objection at this time,

again, subject to context for being able to

readdress it, if necessary.

MR. SCAROLA: Number four is sustaineSS

THE COURT: Yes, sir, for the reas stated in the record.

MR. SCAROLA: Understood.

THE COURT: The NPA, I ready indicated that the incl' o would be - if properly predica ould be allowed. on, tcJo complainants -- I don't see an w t would be grounds for objecti that? The Jane Doe, the

MS : I'm not sure what the ance is. I'm not the proponent of the ence, but I don't see what relevance here would be of Jane Doe's complaint.

The relevance in this malicious prosecution action might be the allegations of this complaint, this action. But when we start bringing in other complaints as exhibits for a jury to read, I think that

1 goes far afield from --

2 3 THE COURT: This is the same Jane Doe or a different Jane Doe?

4 MR. SCAROLA: Same Jane Doe.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 Next issue.

7 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Your Honor.

8 9 There are two Jane Does. This is Jane 102.

10 11 Jane Doe 102 was a Bob Jos g client.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 And just so I orie Honor with regard to this matt r the terms of the non-prosecut\* a eement, the federal court appoin e Josefsberg as counsel on (:.,01 behalf of a represented victims to protect interest of unrepresented ms turn the terms of the prosecution agreement.

20 21 22 23 One of those multiple victims being represented by Mr. Josefsberg was an individual identified as Jane Doe 102. She has since been publicly identified as

24

C.)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

complaint include the transport of Jane Doe Number 2 on Mr. Epstein's private jets to various homes owned by Mr. Epstein in various locations inside and outside the United States.

THE COURT: She's expected to be a witness?

MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Live witness?

A÷In olested onboard the airplane, and that she was prostituted out to third parties onboard the airplane, which provided the basis for Mr. seeking airplane logs and the testimony of pilots and the testimony of others identified in the flight logs as MR. S : May I just finish my argumen to why this complaint was of ficance? Because she does -- she does ge in the complaint that she was

MR. SCAROLA: Live.

THE COURT: At this o going to find that, if, in fact, a witness, that it would be cu and hence I am going to sustai jection on those grounds.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

being present on the plane.

THE COURT: That's fine. I don't have a problem with Mr. testifying. If it becomes an issue in terms of credibility or whatever it might be, then I will take another look at it. But on the basis of the arguments that I have heard, the objecti O on provided. is sustained for the reasons that I

MR. SCAROLA: Understood.

II. ROCEENHACH: before we leave, based on You ruling, I would make an ore tenu tion for leave to depose Virginia Rob, cause now it has become clear that s going to be testifying, based o IIN. Scarola's statement and Your s ruling.

OTHE COURT: Wasn't she scheduled to 'come to court from Australia? Wasn't that the lady?

MR. SCAROLA: That's where she's living. She was scheduled to come to court. She was available to be deposed previously. They chose not to take her deposition. She

has been listed as a witness for years in this matter.

THE COURT: You'll have to do a written motion. But I want to be consistent with what I said recently, and that is that it's not -- the continuance is not -- and I emphasize not -- designed to be a wholesal4 reopening of discovery; that the Court take that up on an issue-by-issue ba but, without pre-deciding anyt g, unless it can be demonstrated to t that there was unavailabilit there was a late filing, that t some type of inability of a w o testify, something along those

These sses have been listed for a lengthy od of time. Again, this was not urpose of as not the import of the order of the i?4Court. the motion that was filed and

Let's talk about number seven.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Messages taken from message pads found at Mr. Epstein's home.

THE COURT: What do the messages say?

1 2 3 4 sexual massages with minors. I can't tell you from memory -- but Mr. may be able to -- whether there are specific references to our three clients.

5 6 7 THE COURT: Not to be overly technical serving as co-counsel? A(54Ar or hypertechnical here, is Mr.

8 9 10 11 12 Isy MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. I've told Your Honor before, we don' anticipate him taking an activ trial, but he remains as co record in this case. in the of

13 THE COURT: Fai

14 15 Mr. on that? ha you like to comment

16 17 18 19 20 MR. message Sure, Your Honor. include the names of many The of nderaged females that visited and set ppointments at Mr. Epstein's home, ncluding L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe.

21 22 23 THE COURT: Have they been authenticated by Mr. Epstein? Or did he take the Fifth on that?

24 25 MR. : He has taken the Fifth on questions related to that. They have been

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

authenticated in other depositions by Detective Vicari, although those were taken in other cases. But he's an available witness who could testify as to the chain of custody, where he found the message -- where he found the messages and how he gathered them during the search warrant.

ettled the three lawsuits in which he represented those three women. But they are not relevant in the malicious prosecution case whether my client had probable cause to file this action or not. Or malice. MS : Your Honor, may I This is inflammatory. These message may be relevant had Mr. not

We are definitely getting far afield in

THE COURT: The relevancy, Mr. Sca

MR. SCAROLA: They clearly rela the validity of the claims on b these three victims of Mr. They corroborate that these •men were there at his home o an ccasions, and along with a lar umber of other underaged females who ng routinely molested by Mr Epstein

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 terms of the exhibits. And it looks like - and I understand why Mr. would want to try exhibits that were relevant to his clients' action because the exhibits that should be relevant in the malicious prosecution case are the facts and circumstance, or the lack of facts and circumstances on which my client relied filing this lawsuit -- the civil act the civil proceeding.

11 12 13 14 15 appointments are absolu Message pads regardink 49 9.403 prejudicial and not prejudicial effect clearly o hs any remote probative va his action.

16 17 18 19 MR. S are goi : It seems to me that we nfortunately, around the same rry bush. The validity of the claims n issue.

20 21 22 23 24 In addition to that, the viability of the claims against Mr. Epstein from a criminal perspective is part of why he was so concerned about this non-prosecution agreement being set aside.

1 2 3 4 5 evidence that would prove that he was a serial child molester, that there were dozens and dozens of victims of his molestations, which were occurring multiple times a day, day after day after day.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 And the only way he could foresee at this point in escaping the criminal exposu that was clearly going to result in 0 convictions, because of this mountai C of evidence available, was to scar the one person who was challenging non-prosecution agreemen4Lphr3Ugh the Crime Victims' Rights Act

14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: ASg. ping to defer on ruling on this mentioned d opening statements. And it is goin be determined by the Court in ontext in which I believe it would be ssary. it is not to be

20 21 22 23 24 And I'm concerned about first -- as I mentioned earlier on in another exhibit - that this is collateral. That it would constitute impeachment on a collateral matter.

25 Again, I don't want to get back into 1 2 3 serial child molestation. I believe words to that effect were just utilized, so that's the reason for the ruling.

4 5 6 7 8 9 I think that right now, based upon what I'm looking at, which is not the actual messages, but just the recitation of an exhibit would be that there -- that any ?I probative value would be materially outweighed by the prejudice.

10 11 12 13 14 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank yo Yo r Honor. We are working off of Mr. E exhibit list. And the next one i t, documents related to Mr. Epsteg p uced by Alfredo Rodriguez.

15 16 THE CO A(4947:do was the houseperson I'm understanding? Rodriguez

17 MStROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor.

18 19 20 S THE r COURT: I don't know what that (4 . What specifically are we talking bout?

21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: We're talking about a book that contains a list of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, their names and telephone numbers, as well as a number of other contacts that Jeffrey Epstein has, who,

AA ?

(:.! r

1 2 through other evidence, were established to be regular guests in his home.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 These provided corroboration of the testimony of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. They provided evidence of the extent of Mr. Epstein's molestation of children, which obviously supports the magnitude of the wrong in which he was engaged, which go-a directly to the punitive value of th cl ims brought by L.M., E.W. and Jane that is, a jury faced with the task g a determination as to the late amount of punitive damages, eructed that they shall take into i eration the magnitude of the wrong at includes the total number of s involved in the offender's wrongdo

18 19 20 21 22 HE COURT: I 'judge in that division had found a valid claim for punitive damages in terms of those cases that we are dealing with here? presume that by the time case was settled that I or a predecessor

23 24 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. There were multiple punitive damages claims pending.

I just didn't know the timing.

MR. SCAROLA: Yes.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor's question got us directly to the point. This is relevant evidence for punitive damages in Mr. ' clients' cases, not in this case.

THE COURT: My concerns are, again that we are going too far afield. again, my best efforts are to t, y f% keep this as a level playing fie to focusing on the claimer \\ are this particular cas 141( e malicious prosec n ase. it comes made eing the in

And whi tw and I have already indicated - I believe Epstein's counsel has con that it cannot be sanitized, ill not be sanitized, because it goes r any of the issues that are involved ere -- and by way of Mr. recitations, through Mr. Scarola, the motives that Mr. Epstein may have had to file the action at bar.

But at the same time I am going to rule in the same way as I did as to number seven,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

and that is that I find that under 403 that the probative value -- any probative value is materially outweighed by the prejudice involved.

MR. SCAROLA: May I ask a rhetorical question, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure. AS AY

Isof MR. SCAROLA: When Mr. Epstein all that these cases were ginned up, w alleges that asking in the com for \$50 million (sic) was total q of line Akso and supportive of his c s ns that this was a fabricated cl tructed solely for the purposes su orting -- knowingly supporting a i cheme -- when he alleges that these s really had no significant value, an we not talk about what the ive damage value of the cases were and they had enormous punitive damage value hen they are claims relating to a vast number of molestations by a billionaire?

THE COURT: Because we are dealing with the three cases that Mr. represented these three individuals. And to allow records, information about anybody else at

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

this juncture would, in my view, be collateral to the allegations made by Epstein in his claim.

And there's no contention here that Mr. , for whatever reason, went on some type of organized witch hunt so as to persecute or threaten Mr. Epstein with pro of other cases, proof of other alleged O molestations, documents that are at ssu or anything of that nature.

MR. SCAROLA: That's e hat was alleged, sir. It was a hat was pursuin is ery with regard to molestations ther children that took place on an n when none of Brad 1 n were ever molested on the at he had no reasonable basis that.

OTHE COURT: 7\\ ngaging in a negative, proving up a negative. Now, it seems to me we're

MR. SCAROLA: You lost me.

THE COURT: You understand what I'm trying to say?

THE COURT: If none of Mr. • clients were molested on an airplane, then it seems to me to be conceding my point, and that is, then there's no reason for these other issues to be introduced, because there's nobody that Mr. represented that was molested on an airplane.

MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly my po sir. That's the defense argument.

THE COURT: Show me where MR. SCAROLA: That's t se argument that this was -nt discovery.

THE COURT: Sh ere that's in the complaint about of er alleged victims.

MR. S e'll have that for you in just a m, Your Honor.

Let me take a look at that ee how it may or may not be conjecture.

OMR. SCAROLA: While we are finding -4! ,>tthat we will have that for you in just a moment -- Your Honor may recall that I referenced earlier -- and I have, unfortunately, misplaced the copy of the federal statute. I should have it -- I should have it in just a moment.

THE COURT: I mean, I'm looking at paragraphs 17 and 18, for example, where Mr. Epstein alleges, while relative to this action, Epstein is currently named as defendant in three civil actions alleging sexual assault and battery that were handled by RRA and his attorneys, including Edward ,41 prior to its implosion -- presuming he RRA's and not Mr. ' implosion of which was filed in federal c r -- and the two in state court that already identified. The civil were filed in August and Septembe

Paragraph 1 en 'says, quote, What is clear is a f t and improper investment conduct Ponzi scheme was, in fact, d operated by RRA and certain of amed defendants, which scheme directly cted Epstein as a named defendant in hese civil actions -- referencing the three at issue.

MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct.

THE COURT: Where is --

MR. SCAROLA: Paragraphs 35 and 36.

4 5 6 7 Paragraph 35 states, quote, For instance, the litigation team relentlessly and knowingly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with these famous individuals knowing full and no illicit activities took place. 4104 Ast\\y well that no underaged women were on board

8 9 10 11 12 Rothstein and the litigation team inappropriately attempted to take tht depositions of these celebriti calculated effort to bolste rketing scam that was taking pl quote.

13 Next paragraph.

14 MR. SCAROLA ext paragraph.

15 16 THE CO te, One of the plaintiffs sel -- strike that.

17 18 19 20 On plaintiff's counsel, <sup>I</sup> ed three of Epstein's pilots and sought deposition of a fourth pilot currently erving in Iraq.

21 22 23 24 25 The pilots were deposed by for over 12 hours, and never asked one question relating to or about L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, RRA's clients, as it related to transportation on flights of RRA clients on

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

any of Epstein's planes.

But asked many inflammatory, leading and irrelevant questions about the pilots' thoughts and beliefs, which will never be admissible at trial, which could only have been asked for the purpose of pumping the cases, and thus by using the deposition to sell the cases or a part them to third parties. End quote.

Anything else?

MR. SCAROLA: Those ar obvious references in the comply conduct on the part of Brad Ed leged to have been improper a ng part of the basis for abuse of nce claims.

THE C The Court's ruling remains the sa4.?illy 11

( 4S MR. y SCAROLA: I never like to argue r the Court has already ruled, but there Al'il ts one additional point that I want to make.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I have cited in -- we have cited in submissions to the Court, specifically the motion in limine addressing the scope of admissible evidence

that we have filed. We have cited the provisions of Florida statute 90.404, subsection two, commonly known as the

Rule statute, which talks about evidence of other crimes.

We have also cited the Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 415. And that rule express permits the introduction in evidence of molestation of other children in any fed ral action, criminal or civil, invo 1 the molestation of a child.

Congress explained in the submission t effected by thes is critical to the protection o 4Z 7 blic from rapists and child moles r It's justified by the distincIkl!Ny characteristics of the cases to it applies. )an 'quote, That urt -- the reform

0 In child molestation cases, a history similar acts tends to be exceptionally probative, because it shows an unusual disposition of a defendant, a sexual or pseudosexual interest in children that simply does not exist in ordinary people.

÷f

on child victims, whose credibility can readily be intact in the absence of substantial corroboration.

In such cases, there is a compelling public interest in admitting all significant evidence that will shed some light on the credibility of the change excuse me - the charge and any denial by the defens

(464.)

So --

C.)

THE COURT: And Mr. Scaro we were trying a sexual molestation here may be a stronger argument. the very point that I'm making is t re not trying a sexual molestati per.

Now, th a be elements and issues that may ar depending upon the nature of Mr. Eps s position relative to these However, it does not change the t's view that these messages taken from message pad at Epstein's home relate to others and that the documents related to Epstein produced by his houseman, Mr. Rodriguez, that relate to others, remains irrelevant. And any probative value, if found to be relevant, would be

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

materially outweighed by the prejudice.

The Court's decision remains the same.

I think it's bolstered by the fact that we

are not trying the child molestation case.

And the significance of the collateral cases

is not, in my respectful view, necessarily a

touchstone of this particular case and thi

particular analysis.

C P

0 We are going to have to call it a d y.

I thank you very much, again, ur

arguments and your input, wj11 r1Fand oral.

Thank you, again.

Again, thanks ourt reporter and

our courtroom pe ne also for their hard

work and cou

Have a~ood rest of the week. We will

see you, if not before, on

er 5th.

A'it.i;:!) MR. LINK: Thank you for your time.

> THE COURT: We will take up the

remaining issues of evidence first, and then

we will go back to the schedule, which I

very much appreciate you all providing. We

will adhere to that schedule as we continue

We will be in recess.

______________________________________________________________________

(The above proceedings were

concluded at 3:55 p.m.)

A Cos

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

### COURT CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA : SS COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )

I, SONJA D. , certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically repor foregoing proceedings and that the transc c true record of my stenographic notes

> Dated this 1st y " CIS9 Sfe As " December 2017.

> > SONJA D.

+0