IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶
Case No. 50-2009CA040800X300CMBAG¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,¶
v.¶
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually,¶
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.¶
A Cos¶
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT J FFRE EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFEND COUNTER-PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR PROPOUND LIMITED REQUESTS FO ION¶
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey ste psteini, responds in opposition to the Motion for Leave to Propound Limi 1098] filed by Defendant/Coun C .) fti ;'Bradley for Admission dated December 1, 2017 [D.E.¶
I3ACKGROUND¶
Discovery is over urt Order dated July 20, 2017, this Court special set the trial of this matter for D ber 5, 2017. [D.E. 938.] In doing so, the Court ordered that the deadline to complete was set for 10 days before trial. Id. at H. That meant, discovery had to be comp ovember 27, 2017, making written requests due by October 27, 2017.¶
Although the Court granted Epstein's request for a continuance of the trial and reset the special set trial to March 13, 2018, it did not specifically address the Motion's second part which sought an extension of the pretrial deadlines. [D.E. 1035; 1057.] opposed any pretrial deadline extension and affirmatively moved to reconfirm the original pretrial deadlines. [D.E. 1059.] In his Motion, argued that, "The order resetting the trial did not alter any pretrial deadlines including the discovery cutoff date" and objected "to any effort to expand existing deadlines." Id. On November 27, 2017, the Court agreed with and granted Motion finding that, "to the extent that wholesale additional discovery will not be permitted but individual discovery requests may be allowed on a matter-by-matter basi only if the discovery requests are impacted by the Court's ruling on motions currently pen be heard ...." [D.E. 1086, e.s.]¶
Despite having asked this Court to enforce the discovery cuto 2017, moved for leave to serve Requests for Admissi r15 9., response to his Request for Judicial Notice of a New Yo t) o er registry triggered the need for the additional discovery in order for Epstein to 8h 4 ' e the website printout and confirm its accuracy. [D.E. 1098.] Specifically, Edw4t closed Requests for Admission would ask Epstein to admit the following: 0 , on December 1, argues that Epstein's¶
- a. Admit that the registration Notice Purs dated Noveni * your New York State Sex Offender ed to Request for Judicial orida Statutes Section 90.202 and 90.203, 2017, is authentic. Sex Offender registration page attached to the information contained in the printout of tuislew t for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 0.202 and 90.203, dated November 8, 2017, is accurate.
ARGUMENT¶
Inadmissible and Prejudicial¶
First, Epstein objects to any reference to or admissibility of the New York State Sex Offender registration information at trial because it is irrelevant and prejudicial. §§ 90.401, 90.403, Fla. Stat. The non-admissibility issue is the subject of a separate Motion)¶
Motion Fails to Meet Court Requirements to Reopen Discs nd Seeks Preferential Treatment¶
Second, and procedurally, cannot have it both ways. As made clear in its November 27, 2017, Order and at a subsequent hearing resulting ificantly prejudicial and adverse ruling to Epstein, discovery is closed. Specificall requested leave to disclose his expert witness, Culver (Skip) M, III, Esq., bas cd,"n urt's rulings at extensive pretrial hearings held November 29, December 5 and urging to again enforce the on pre al deadlines, this Court denied Epstein's Motion for Leave to Disclose Expe and referred to the pretrial deadlines with no prejudice analysis. [D.E. 1119 urging the Court's denial, cited this Court's requirements regarding reopemn overy: "...but individual discovery requests may be allowed on a matter by mat bas y if the discovery requests are impacted by the Court's ruling on to be heard ...." [D.E. 1086, c.s.] b 7, 2017. On January 17, 2018, at¶
can be no dispute that it has been who has repeatedly opposed any extension pretrial deadlines. counsel knew for years of the registration site and had previously indicated he wanted it for purposes of identifying Epstein's "assets...through those sex offender registration disclosures...." (12/5/17 Tr. 202:11-203:3).2 longstanding¶
' Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Motion in Limine as to Sex Offender Registry Information.¶
2 Excerpts of the December 5, 2017, hearing transcript are attached as Exhibit A.¶
knowledge of the registration site (and potential hearsay obstacles) is not this Court's problem to remedy. had many years to seek these discovery requests/admissions and his current trial evidentiary conundrum was simply not caused by any ruling by this Court on motions pending for the November/December pretrial hearings.¶
There is simply no justification for belated request. has rovided no legitimate reason for this Court to extend an expired discovery deadline to permit E s to serve Requests for Admissions that easily could have propounded anyti the preceding eight years. This is particularly true, where the Court just recently de n's well-founded request for relief from the discovery deadline based entirely c ) e t-year duration of this matter. Epstein's well-founded hearsay objection to Ed 14 )' uest for Judicial Notice does not warrant extension of the discovery cutoff. Epste' i ils, ' on certainly was not caused by any ruling of this Court, but rather by the obviou ( s ' S e p ty of seeking to introduce into evidence irrelevant and unduly prejudicial New <L k ie,S Sex Offender registration information at a malicious prosecution trial. E i ' rsay objection as to admissibility was readily foreseeable, and if granted, w Id n9 create unknown or unanticipated discovery issues about Epstein's assets or net wo ues that already have been litigated extensively in this case.¶
If Epstein<s not nted leave to disclose a vital trial expert witness with no prejudice cited by Edve urely the pretrial discovery cutoffs should apply equally to written discov ests for Admissions.¶
Epstein is Not the Proper Person to Authenticate or Confirm Information¶
Third, the proposed Requests for Admission ask Epstein to authenticate information and confirm its accuracy over which Epstein has no control (i.e., New York State records).3¶
Florida Statutes section 90.901 provides:¶
Requirement of authentication or identification — Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. The requirements of this section are satisfied b evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is quest what its proponent claims.¶
In order to authenticate the New York Sex Offender registrat required to (I) call a witness with personal knowledge (§ 90.90 . S to self-authenticate (§ 90.902(4), Fla. Stat.); or (3) asse IS ci ?O blications (§ 90.902(5), Fla. Stat.). attempt to avoid the Florida EvideS tiS e e y propounding the tardy discovery requests should be rejected. ation, is (2) use public records¶
Epstein respectfully requ Motion be denied. asked for confirmation of the pretrial d lines a d must be held to that request. There was no court ruling "on motions currently p 2017j" which ca tkar'the n for untimely discovery requests. to be heard... [on November 29, December 5 or December 7,¶
eN¶
+0¶
3 If the Court grants IM late Request for Admission and requires Epstein to substantively answer, Epstein would consistently assert his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).¶
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶
I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on January 29, 2018, 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¶
| Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 <u>mep@searcylaw.com</u> <u>jsx@searcylaw.com</u> <u>scarolateam@searcylaw.com</u> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] | Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 <u>njs@FLAppellateLaw.com</u> <u>kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com</u> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] |
|---|---|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
J. Marc S. Nurik Pottinger LW 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@eplIc.com marc@nuriklaw.com staff.efile®pathtojustice.com Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Co-Counselor De J.¶
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700¶
Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 ,1OAlk" West Palm Beach, FL 33401 smahoneye.agwpa.com Co igoldbergereagwpa.com -Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ..agia.¶
O¶
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-Plaintiff.¶
VOLUO 7¶
TRANSC <t TP PROCEEDINGS ?S H\¶
14 ...,¶
O4¶
DATE TA uesday, December 5th, 2017 TIME: 10:02 a.m. - 4:35 p.m. PLA 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10C West Palm Beach, Florida FORS: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge¶
A46 :) This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aid, when and where the following proceedings were ; rted by:¶
Sonja D. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 471-2995
¶
1 sex-offender registrations.¶
2 MR. SCAROLA: May we stop there?¶
3 THE COURT: Yes.¶
4 MS. ROCKENBACH: Before we stop, Your Honor, was about to rule on 60 through 62.¶
6 7 8 THE COURT: Sixty through 62 is sustained for the reasons that I've alr earlier indicated on the record.¶
9 10 Sixty-three. Epstein's sex o fen er registrations.¶
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, a Mr. Epstein's sex offe gastration, particularly in th of New York -- I'm not sure the ex t which it applies elsewhere -- obliged to disclose his ownershi nte est in vehicles, airplanes and sidences, that is, he had to list all tho things. And one of the ways that rave identified Jeffrey Epstein's assets s through those sex offender registration disclosures that he was obliged make and did make.¶
23 24 25 So it has to do with punitive damages in addition, perhaps, to something else. But it has to do with punitive damages in¶
particular.¶
THE COURT: I will take a look at that when the time comes, if it comes at all.¶
Thank you.¶
Booking photographs. Again, same ruling as I made on the other matters regarding the criminal aspects of the c¶
MR. SCAROLA: This would simply photograph, Your Honor.¶
THE COURT: What's its r ncy?
¶
\ MR. SCAROLA: I'm no r. Epstein is going to be here.¶
THE COURT: ATanning 'Ss to subpoena him?¶
MR. SCt No, sir. No. If he chooses e here, I have videotaped depo 'tion.¶
COURT: That's fine.¶
!Sy MR. SCAROLA: I want to be able to Alith, 0 dentify him as the person who got convicted.¶
THE COURT: It could be duplicative of a video.
¶
MR. SCAROLA: It may be. Again, I just want to explain to Your Honor that's why¶