Draft: efta02767260

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

Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXKIBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,¶

v.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSES Q MONS TO NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO DEPT DUCES TECUM¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epst "), pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350(b), responds and obj ces Tecum contained in Counter-Plaintiff Tecum, and states: ca,< z) 018, Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces¶

THE LIMITED ) SCOPE OF EPSTEIN'S DEPOSITION¶

On May N tti 018, e Court held a hearing on I= Motion to Permit him to Take the Limited 'ft of Epstein. (Exhibit A - Transcript). While the Court has not yet entered an Iset, it granted request to take Epstein's deposition on the following limited to :¶

• Whether and to what extent Epstein reviewed any of the alleged privileged materials prior to March 2018. (Exhibit A, 19:7-12.)

• Whether and to what extent Epstein reviewed any of the alleged privileged materials after March 2018. (Exhibit A, 19:7-12.)

• Whether Epstein has any knowledge regarding compliance with the Court's verbal rulings on the record at the Marc1L. 8. a 2018, hearing regarding destruction of those documents has claimed are privileged. (Exhibit A, 19:13-18.)

• Whether and to what extent Epstein has shared any of the alleged privileged materials with anyone other than his attorneys. (Exhibit A, 19:19-22.)

• Which, if any, of the alleged privileged materials Epstein plan to use to testify at trial. (Exhibit A, 19:22-20:2.)

While the Court has allowed Epstein's limited deposition, docu g t ip very was not addressed by the parties or the Court at the hearing and, in fact, disco cry t sed. nC,¶

DUCES TECU¶

Duces Tecum requests Epstein to prod y4:¶

All communications and all records At all communications concerning or containing inform to eri ed from documents or data over which a claim of prjiVtIe w asserted by or on behalf of J.¶

* "Documents" shall ' I, not be limited to all non-identical copies of writings ' , graphs, charts, photographs, phonorecords, recordi any other data compilations from which information can e o fined, translated, if necessary, by the party to whom the req t is directed through detection devices into reasonabl form. "Documents" also include all electronic data we as application metadata and system metadata. All in ries and rosters of your information technology (IT) .g., hardware, software and data, including but not to network drawings, lists of computing devices (servers, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data storage and/or nsmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols.¶

± seeks: (1) documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege; (2) documents that have been sealed; and (3) access to Epstein's computers and electronic devices.¶

EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION¶

A. General Response.¶

Epstein's current trial counsel, Link & Rockenbach, PA, received the disc which is the subject of Epstein's deposition from Epstein's former counsel, , in February 2018. Epstein never received the disc nor did he know of the disc's existence before that time.¶

At the March 8, 2018 hearing, this Court directed the parties to seal the no further dissemination of the documents Rockenbach, PA, took immediate steps to comply with this Court's set forth in Epstein's Notices of Compliance. The disc has b claims are currently the subject of Epstein's request that to make a determination as to whether the documen claimed were O • ensure Link & ar 18, directives as and privilege conduct an in camera review eged as claimed by¶

In any event, Epstein objects to the e syecum did not obtain permission to Epstein's limited deposition. Ep and information protected by relevant to the limited iss because discovery is closed and scovery for any purpose other than to take bjects because the Duces Tecum seeks documents ey-client privilege and work product doctrine and are not e deposition.¶

B. The Due ecum Seek Privileged. Protected and Sealed Documents¶

Notw mg that document discovery has not been reopened, even if the Court allow overy the scope of permissible discovery in civil cases is set by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b):¶

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: . . . Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action[.]

¶

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1) (emphasis added).¶

The sweepingly broad nature of the request—all communication a II (I all records ttlatiou to all communications—inappropriately requires disclosure of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, as well as documents which have been (and remain) sealed by Order of this Court or destroyed at the Court's direction.¶

Under Florida law, "[a] client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to revent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications w ch other person learned of the communications because they were made in the ren ibijJegal services to the client." § 90.502(2), Fla. Stat. "The purpose of the att encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys," dt, ' ...those disclosures necessary to obtain informed legal advice." Fisher v. tin' i S, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976). t privilege is to¶

The work-product privilege is set forth in iF itlip ' i e of Civil Procedure 1.280, which s states work product is discoverable only upo, g of undue hardship and need, although mental impressions or legal opinions are ays tected: ( S it¶

(4) Trial Preparat rials. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (bX rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tan 'be things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)( this rule and prepared in anticipation of liti ation trial by or for another party or by or for that e tative, including that party's attorney, consultant, nitor, insurer, or agent, only upon a showing that the discovery has need of the materials in the ration of the case and is unable without undue hardship to + in the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. ordering discovery of the materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.¶

v. Harter, 152 So. 3d 705, 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(bX4) (bold/underline emphasis added).¶

Here, the information requested by, on its face, is protected by both the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. While not all communications between lawyer and client are deemed privileged, a request for "all communications," as makes here, necessarily includes information that is confidential and attorney-client privileged. And, as required to assert the work product protection, at least one reason for obtaining or pr paring any such materials and data was in anticipation of this litigation or for trial. See M oft, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ("As there is 0 alcompetent record evidence that the incident reports in question were prepared i an i t on of foreseeable litigation, which is uncontroverted by any competent evidence con de that the trial court's finding that the reports were not protected by work pr c t r supported by the record and departs from the essential requirements of the law sdiction. The fact that there was evidence that the reports may also have bee. in order for [the defendant] to identify areas of concern does not alter this findi not eliminate the work • roduct rivile c.") (emphasis added; citation omitted Express Corp. v. CaniWay, 778 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) findical uments keep their work product protection even if they were prepared for an add of litigation was ason not in anticipation of litigation as long as the anticipation easons for preparing the documents).¶

C. bequest for Electronic Data is an Invasion of Epstein's Privacy and Seeks Ir Confidential and Privileged Information¶

F* y, Epstein objects to request as to "all electronic data as well as application metadata and system metadata. All inventories and rosters of your information technology (IT) systems—e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network drawings, lists of computing devices (servers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols." Such a¶

Generally speaking, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 alto for the discovery of matters that are relevant and admissibl reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, i electronically stored information. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.2 (bX3), 1.350 (2013); see also Fla. IL Civ. P. 1.280(d limitations on the discovery of electronically stored fo • ation). But where personal information is involved a thi ase, the trial courts' discretion to permit discove ust be balanced a • ainst the individual's corn etin • riv nterests to • revent an undue invasion of privacy." McEn 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Courts ;z adequately accounting for priva electronic storage devices. Se 3d [953,] 955 [Fla. 5th DCA inspection of a compute Menke v. Broward Cn 2005) (reversing an in a household). 981 Ky n, 44 So. 3d 245, i4rye ed rulings for not es s in the inspection of and [v. Barfield], 35 So. ( ersing an order allowing the e and cellphone SIM card); , 916 So. 2d 8, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA ing the inspection of all computers¶

request is an invasion of Epstein's privacy, seeks irrelevant and confidential information, is overly broad, could result in the inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privilege information and attorney work product, and is far outside the scope of the Court's oral ruling.¶

seeks unprecedented access into Epstein's computer systems and electronic devices which in no way supports his claim for damages. As the First District has exp ained:¶

. . . privacy righ do not completely foreclose the prospect of discovery toned on electronic devices. Rather, limited and strict! cont ll inspections of information stored on electronic dev4i may permitted. See Menke, 916 So. 2d at 11 ("JRule 1-350 j broad enough to encompass requests to examine electronic information storage devices but only in limited and y controlled circumstances"); cf. v. Heart Inst. of 1Ttort St. Luck, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003) (finding that privacy rights limit compelled disclosure to that which is necessary to determine contested issues). Both Holland and Menke, for instance, would have allowed for inspections of the devices involved (computers and cellphones) if: (1) there was evidence of destruction of evidence or thwarting of discovery; (2) the device likely contained the requested information; and (3) no less intrusive means existed to obtain the requested information. Holland 35 So. 3d at 955; Menke, 916 So. 2d at 12.

¶

Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc., 148 So. 3d 163, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (emphasis added).¶

Here, access to Epstein's computer systems and electronic devices should si ql be allowed absent any evidence whatsoever that Epstein destroyed any materials (other than as directed by this Court) or thwarted discovery, and because his devices are unlikely to contain the requested information. Far less intrusive means of discovery — Epstein's limited deposition, 460.. the, Court permitted -- should be the only discovery allowed.¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to th Service List below on July 18, 2018, through the Court's e-filing po of Judicial Administration 2.516(6)(1). listed on the uant to Florida Rule¶

+6s¶

LINK & RO 1555 Pal West P (56 a H, PA Boulevard, Suite 930 , Florida 33401 ; (561) 855-2891 [fax]¶

ottJ. Link¶

tt J. Link (FBN 602991)¶

Kara Berard Rockenbach (FBN 44903)¶

Primary: Scott@linkrocklaw.com¶

Primary: Kara®Iinkrocklaw.com¶

Secondary: Tina@linkrocklaw.com¶

Secondary: Troy®Iinkrocklaw.com¶

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein¶

SERVICE LIST¶

<p>Jack Scarola Karen E. Terry David P. Vitale, Jr. Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 <a href="mailto:mep@searcylaw.com">mep@searcylaw.com</a> <a href="mailto:jsx@searcylaw.com">jsx@searcylaw.com</a> <a href="mailto:dvitale@searcylaw.com">dvitale@searcylaw.com</a> <a href="mailto:scarolateam@searcylaw.com">scarolateam@searcylaw.com</a> <a href="mailto:terryteam@searcylaw.com">terryteam@searcylaw.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> <span style="background-color: black; color: black;">[REDACTED]</span> J. [REDACTED]</p>	<p>Philip M. Burlington Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 <a href="mailto:pmb@FLAppellateLaw.com">pmb@FLAppellateLaw.com</a> <a href="mailto:njs@FLAppellateLaw.com">njs@FLAppellateLaw.com</a> <a href="mailto:kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com">kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> <span style="background-color: black; color: black;">[REDACTED]</span> J. [REDACTED]</p>
<p><span style="background-color: black; color: black;">[REDACTED]</span> J. [REDACTED] Pottinger LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 <a href="mailto:brad@epllc.com">brad@epllc.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> <span style="background-color: black; color: black;">[REDACTED]</span> J. [REDACTED]</p>	<p>Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 <a href="mailto:marc@nuriklaw.com">marc@nuriklaw.com</a> <i>Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein</i> <span style="background-color: black; color: black;">[REDACTED]</span> J. [REDACTED]</p>
<p>Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 <a href="mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com">jgoldberger@agwpa.com</a> <a href="mailto:smahoney@agwpa.com">smahoney@agwpa.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant</i> <i>Jeffrey Epstein</i></p>	<p>Paul Cassell 383 S. University Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 <a href="mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu">cassellp@law.utah.edu</a> <i>Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M., E.W.</i> <i>and Jane Doe</i> <span style="background-color: black; color: black;">[REDACTED]</span></p>
	<p>Jay Howell Jay Howell & Associates 644 Cesery Blvd., Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 <a href="mailto:jayhowell.com">jayhowell.com</a> <i>Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M., E.W.</i> <i>and Jane Doe</i></p>

EXHIBIT A¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

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

Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; , individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.¶

/i b) S ir TRANSCRIPT OF O INGS¶

4 t¶

DATE TAKEN: sday, May 23rd, 2018 TIME: 9. 0 a.m. - 9:18 a.m. PLACE 5 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10D est Palm Beach, Florida BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge¶

(0.4:C v tIr¶

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

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

6 7 9 Ask By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE SHIPLEY, P.A. Ir For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART &':.... is)¶

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¶

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By DAVID P. VITALE JR., ESQAV¶

1 MR. VITALE: Good morning, Your Honor.¶

2 3 MS. ROCKENBACH: Good morning, Your Honor.¶

4 6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: Good morning. We are back on a motion by to take a limited deposition of Mr. Epstein. I have read as ALI much as material as I could, including m4Rly of the transcript of the proceeding t transpired in front of Judge Ray, bankruptcy judge who did allo deposition to be taken.¶

12 13 And I presume it' to be taken by members of your of . Vitale.¶

14 MR. VITALE.q Ye sir.¶

15 16 A t e THE CO • o what did you need what Jud R as authorized? beyond¶

17 18 19 V ALE: What Judge Ray has horze is a deposition related to pstein's possession of the disc.¶

20 21 22 23 24 25 What we are concerned with is enforcement of Your Honor's order regarding the 724 filed exhibits that you have stricken for use at trial. Forty-seven of those, at least, are privileged documents that were listed on our privilege log since¶

Now through the court filings that's been made in the recent months there's been two representations.¶

The first representations is that Mr. Epstein, as an individual, as a witness did not review or become aware of the privileged materials until March of 2¶

So at a minimum, even if the already stricken, they would relevant from a probable cause det SA they could not have le robable cause 8ic to initiate the la until 2012. Von because 2009 and continue¶

The se n presentation that has been made is at Epstein was provided a subs of t e privileged documents which he re ' et"'ew prior to our March 5th trial¶

THE COURT: How much prior?¶

MR. VITALE: My understanding -- and I'm sure Mr. Link or Ms. Rockenbach can correct me if I'm wrong -- it would have been within weeks prior to the original March 13th trial date. He was provided a 1 subset of the documents.¶

2 3 4 6 7 8 Now, what we are concerned about is that although there's been representations in court filings that Mr. Epstein was ordered by this trial court to destroy the records, there's been no affidavit or .hal '14t evidence put forth that he has complied that order.¶

9 THE COURT: Who is he?¶

10 MR. VITALE: He being Mr tein, sir.¶

11 12 13 14 15 We do not know what 1 ed material Mr. Epstein reviewed. ot know the depth of his revie o not know who he may have shared ios rivileged materials with.¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Now t make any suggestion that oppo ng counsel will knowingly put a t d-_arty witness on the stand with vipence -- that had knowledge of our T?Ik. rivileged materials. But if Mr. Epstein gave privileged materials to the third-party witness, that could occur.¶

23 24 25 So what we would like to be able to do is take a very limited deposition. Mr. Epstein is already going to be in Palm¶

0¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Beach County. We would like to know what privileged materials he reviewed. Again, these are privileged materials that have been on our privileged log since 2010. We would like to know the timing of that review. We would like to know whether he still possesses the privileged materials whether he has complied with the Co C ur order.¶

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And the reason, Your Hon s because if Mr. Epstein on the wit nd starts giving answers that go knowledge of privileged materia eed to be in a position to obj t, ve to strike. And S ome Your Honor e s o be in a position to be able to tmel rule on those objections or moti¶

18 19 20 ht now we simply don't know what he We don't know what privileged aterials he has.¶

21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: How do you see that as going beyond Judge Ray's order? In other words, essentially three areas of inquiry whether Mr. Epstein reviewed any of the documents prior to March 8th, 2018, I¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 believe would be encompassed in Judge Ray's order by permitting the limited deposition. Whether he did or didn't comply with the Court's order of destroying the records, would be essentially a very, very limited inquiry that may touch on Judge Ray's order allowing a limited deposition.¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Did he share any privileged mate with anyone other than -- from wha recall, Mr. Link's representa -- or Mr. Link and Ms. Rockenba A(N S' Mr. Goldberger -- agai, nk is encompassed fairly 8i si, Judge (SE of allowing the 'mi d deposition. Ray's scope¶

15 16 17 18 So let e h r -- so is there anything else tha ou, ant to add, other than the thre areas that I've covered? Maybe I n area that you had mentioned.¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VITALE: Yes, sir. The 0 li' lk larification I would make is that those three areas, I would term them procedural. It's simply when did he review? Did he share them? What we are looking for is an ability at this trial to enforce the Court's order to ensure that nothing comes through¶

()emitted to use If he reviewed them, let's say, February 26th, I need to know ri he reviewed so I can underst ' answers on the stand, and Mr. Sca a I could be in M ;52, ay, a position -- or -- to object and to move to stri Judge, we took his deposit' n o une 30th, and question and answ at he reviewed and here is what to cl us he reviewed. You can see er he just gave is derived from the 'leged materials that he is not under this Court's orders. That would be --¶

the backdoor that isn't allowed through the front door; is to understand the substance of what exactly -- which privileged materials that he reviewed, which privileged materials he may attempt to utilize in answers to questions in an attempt to get privileged materials in through the backdoor.¶

THE COURT: Do we even know if he is going to testify at trial in this case?¶

MR. VITALE: There's been no clarification. We are proceeding as if he¶

1 2 will be testifying. We have been not been told definitively that he is not.¶

3 THE COURT: Ms. Rockenbach?¶

4 6 7 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. Kara Rockenbach on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Your Honor hit the nail on the head.¶

8 9 10 11 12 First point. There are four ACt why this court should deny Mr. Ed motion. And the first one is rely what Your Honor pointed out w ' this is a matter before the bank court.¶

13 14 15 16 Bankruptcy Ju e has already issued an order. And a e correct, the deposition r. Epstein is going forward to deter¶

17 COURT: Have you set a date yet?¶

18 19 20 21 22 23 LINK: Your Honor, we have nged four or five different dates. We ave six counsels, so we don't have a date But the evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Ray is in August, so the depo will take place before then, Judge.¶

24 THE COURT: Thanks.¶

25 MS. ROCKENBACH: So that's the first¶

1 2 3 reason why. And that alone should allow this Court to deny this request that really has no other purpose.¶

4 6 7 8 9 10 11 The second reason is none of the materials about which Mr. seeks to depose Mr. Epstein about have even been determined by this Court to be privileg not. We have requested an in-camera instruction of these documents. S6 there hasn't even been a determinat privilege.¶

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Number three, -- or Vitale's stated pu the motion and then here befor ou Honor makes no sense. The purpose r t alleged justification to take Mr. is p suant n s deposition in this case to the motion that they filed to wards to identify and object to at O 1 all attempts by Epstein to utilize t ?h,, rivileged materials, these are very skilled, able trial lawyers. They know how to object. They do not need to take Mr. Epstein's deposition to determine what objections they should make at trial.¶

25 And the second or corollary reason that¶

2 3 4 5 6 7 was stated in the motion -- stated again this morning -- is they need Mr. Epstein's deposition in order for this Court to know how to rule at trial on the admissibility of evidence. Your Honor is well capable of enforcing your own orders and rulings, and so those stated reasons just have no mer'¶

8 9 10 11 But the last and most significan reason that is important -- becaus o t think Your Honor has seen it - if I may approach?¶

12 13 Mr. Link and I fik€d notices of compliance with th¶

14 MR. VITALE. Ma have a copy?¶

13 16 17 IIIIIIIO k H: e of compl' nce at Counsel referred to this morn I'm sorry. The notice¶

18 LINK: There are two copies there.¶

19 20 THE COURT: I have two copies. They not of the same thing.¶

21 22 MR. LINK: I think there are copies of each.¶

23 MS. ROCKENBACH: Sorry about that.¶

24 25 THE COURT: No. That's okay. I got you.¶

1 2 MS. ROCKENBACH: But these are the notices of compliance that we have filed.¶

3 4 6 Your Honor, we went above and beyond because this court has not actually entered a written order on ' motion to strike the exhibits or deemed them privileged.¶

7 8 THE COURT: That hasn't been before That hasn't been argued yet, has it?¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MS. ROCKENBACH: It was. It as he March 8th hearing where these bits came to light and we discussed And Your Honor made specific or gs and we detailed them in t notices of compliance. Th ws no objection filed by Mr. 4 at ver about our detailed - and we cited ,t71 the hearing transcript to be comp tely accurate with Your Honor's cn¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So there was never a requirement by 0 t?h,, our Honor that we certify compliance with the rulings. Your Honor took our word as officers of the court as to how we handled the document. And then we went further to assist and cooperate, without court order, to seal the documents and then further to¶

1 destroy the documents.¶

2 3 4 And those two notices of compliance identify -- I think there are 14 bullet points and --¶

6 7 8 THE COURT: So you've destroyed all the documents? What is the position being takte relative to their admissibility, some o all?¶

9 10 11 12 13 14 0 MS. ROCKENBACH: We are waiti g f r -- Your Honor has indicated that • are giving us special set time on, the July trial docket. And ones issues is the motion for in came determine. our Honor to¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 THE CO hat's going to be firmed up now. • I told you that I might be able o fin some time. I don't think t t's oing to happen. So somebody should out a notice of hearing that puts you 61.? S:1 41 this July 2 docket with a June 22 trial docket calendar call. It runs from July 2nd to September 7th. So do that formally so that we can get you on there formally.¶

24 25 MR. LINK: Your Honor, can I comment on the non-written order so the Court¶

1 understands what happened?¶

2 THE COURT: Okay.¶

3 4 MR. LINK: As much as I hate to raise the subject, the reason the Court didn't enter an order is because of the stay and --¶

6 7 MR. VITALE: Competing orders were submitted.¶

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MR. LINK: Yeah, competing order submitted, but then the case was s aye Your Honor. So it's not as t you were not going to enter an ord ur oral rulings, but we went a d complied with your oral rulings That's why we don't have a wr ten rder, Judge.¶

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THE CO • don't remember I shouldn s y don't remember -- there's so lirmilv l much oing on -- this may be what you're t kin about. What I try to do with breaks C5 nnl video depos and things like that in the rial is try and go through some of this stuff and get some work done.¶

22 23 That's the competing orders on motion to strike Epstein's untimely supplemental¶

24 MR. LINK: Yes, Your Honor.¶

25 MS. ROCKENBACH: That's it.¶

THE COURT: Does the timeliness issue -- is that still -- becomes an issue or is that moot?¶

MS. ROCKENBACH: It's moot.¶

MR. VITALE: It's not moot, Your Honor. It's still an issue.¶

THE COURT: I guess I can enter th4,..Sio" order, but then it can be dealt with O otherwise, I presume.¶

C MR. LINK: Your Honor, tell you we have fully complied wi ourt's ruling, and we believe ese issues are teed up again thro Vitale's office and our office t e hearings in July. I think the C r '11 see all of these issues again at hose earings.¶

COURT: That was just an extra copy mission to the Court. I don't need¶

÷6 t MS. ROCKENBACH: So just to close, Your Honor, Judge Ray has already addressed the issue, and it is not necessary for Mr. Epstein to be deposed any broader than Judge Ray has already indicated.¶

And, in fact, Your Honor, as you went¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 through the three items expressed by Plaintiff's Counsel, Judge Ray is addressing that. So to have Mr. Epstein be deposed so that Counsel can determine what trail objections to make or how this Court should rule on admissibility is not the subject of a motion for a deposition or another deposition of Mr. Epstein.¶

9 10 11 12 0 If it is, in fact, about comp Ian e, well then, it would have been ed a motion to seek determinat er we complied with the Cour Sul ngs.¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 We have. And why I submitted to Your Honor the n ices of compliance which Your n r idn t request those, didn't er t ose. We did that, really, just o show our good faith in compliance w' h t re l :Ilv Court's oral rulings.¶

19 20 21 <4;;r So we ask that Your Honor deny the Oequest to take another deposition of Mr. Epstein.¶

22 THE COURT: Thank you.¶

23 Last word.¶

24 25 MR. VITALE: Yes, Your Honor. This is not an admissibility issue. We understand¶

1 2 3 4 that Your Honor is more than capable of determining which of the 47 privileged documents are admissible based on Your Honor's current order. They are not admissible.¶

6 7 8 9 10 I have no qualms -- and I'm not standing here suggesting that Mr. Link Ms. Rockenbach are going to attempt t exhibits that you have ruled are inadmissible. C tso¶

11 12 13 14 15 Our concern is that ein, as a party, has reviewed a s of our privileged materia < r tit ileged materials that have been on our privilege log for eight y¶

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Our n is that, on the witness stan in response to questions, he will knowledge that he gained from the ileged materials he has reviewed in rder to get that evidence in through the backdoor that Your Honor will not allow in through the front door.¶

23 24 25 The only way for Mr. Scarola or myself or Ms. Terry to properly object is to know what specific subset of privileged materials¶

he's reviewed so I can understand when he gives an answer, we can object and we can point you to a deposition transcript saying, Your Honor, we asked him what he reviewed. Here is what he reviewed. We asked him if he had any other knowledge of this topic outside of privileged materials, he saic4Slo" No. That testimony should be stricke the witness should be admonished.¶

So it's not an issue of sibility. It's our ability to ident he's reviewed to prevent th g . As Your Honor has said, th t coming in through the fro do And your Honor made it clear in 1441%: 1l ruling on March 8th that the wil not come in through the back e need to understand what he's Fr i in order to make those objections.¶

THE COURT: Well, based upon the fact hat there is going to be, at least from my perception and my limited exposure to these emails, a continued insistence, I will presume by Mr. Epstein, on the utilization of some of those emails; and the fact that these emails have come to light subsequent¶

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 to the trial court -- my orders relative to not permitting the floodgates to open and, again, with respect to discovery that should have been taken prior -- here I don't believe that's something that would be subject to that order, meaning, consistent with Judge Ray's ruling -- I too will a AhlarN Mr. Epstein to be -- on a limited bas questioned regarding his review of any of the documents in question pri March 18th or subsequentAt4s isp to the present time.¶

13 14 15 16 17 18 Whether or no AS h S any knowledge regarding the c ce of the Court's order regar that's n admissible at able. troying of the records, ssarily going to be trial, although I think it's¶

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Whether or not he shared any of the 07?6, 0 Ilegedly privileged materials with anyone other than Mr. Link, Ms. Rockenbach or Mr. Goldberger; and which, if any, materials he plans to use to testify at trial, if he so testifies, the last issue can be avoided if there is a representation on the record¶

based upon his review. However, absent such a stipulation, he will be compelled to answer questions as to what, if any, of those materials he plans to use, even if he doesn't have those material in his possession any longer. It would¶

that Mr. Epstein will not testify at any trial proceedings in this case.¶

0 So that would be the limited breas of inquiry that I would allow in unction with Judge Ray, and to be ent, essentially, with the S rand intent of Judge Ray's ruling 1 as a corollary to what we are ki for in this particular lative to those materials.¶

So, can, in preparing an order, Mr. tale, track the Court's ruling, I ld preciate it.¶

I wish you all a very pleasant rest of e week.¶

Is there anything else that's remaining, because I think there were two hearings that were set? Is there something else? This is it?¶

MR. LINK: I believe this is the only¶

one, Your Honor.¶

THE COURT: Thank you for your respective participation and arguments. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.¶

(The above proceedings were concluded at 9:18 a.m.) cos¶

COURT CERTIFICATE¶

STATE OF FLORIDA ) : SS
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )¶

I, SONJA D. [REDACTED], certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
true record of my stenographic notes.¶

Dated this 31st day of May 2018.¶

SONJA D. [REDACTED]¶