Draft: efta02769686

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Judge David F. [REDACTED]¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

v.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], individually,¶

Defendants.¶

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO PREVENT DEPOSITION OF ALFRED SECKEL¶

Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 1.280 and Rule 1.410, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for entry of a protective order and an order quashing a subpoena commanding non-party Alfred Seckel to appear for deposition in Los Angeles, California on May 23, 2011, which subpoena Defendant [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] ("[REDACTED]") has noticed over the Plaintiff's objection. The grounds for this Motion are:¶

1. On or about April 7, 2011, counsel to [REDACTED] noticed the deposition of Mr. Seckel, despite the fact that counsel to [REDACTED] was advised by Plaintiff's counsel that Mr. Seckel has no knowledge of any issue in this case and is barely known to the Plaintiff at all. A copy of the Notice and Subpoena is attached as Exhibit A.

2. The Plaintiff seeks an order quashing the subpoena and entry of a protective order to prevent the taking of this deposition indefinitely because Mr. Seckel has no relevant information about this case and to allow the deposition would effectively condone harassment.

case. 4. Accordingly, Mr. Seckel has no information'relevant to any issue in this case nor does he possess any information likely to lead to t discovery of admissible evidence in this¶

3. The Plaintiff became acquainted with Mr. Seckel approximately eighteen (18) months ago in the fall of 2009. At that time, the Plaintiff had already pled guilty, completed his prison sentence and was on community control. The Plaintiff and Mr. Seckel share a common interest in cognitive neuroscience and the science of perception. Mr. Seckel is believed to be one of the world's leading experts in the field of visual and other types of sensor sions, has authored many books and articles related to the science of visual percept' e Plaintiff has met with Mr. Seckel on approximately three (3) occasions and othertvi i tmunicated with him on less than ten (10) occasions regarding to this shared scientific interest.

4. The taking of Mr. Seckel' (CIP\ epo "on, without first making a showing that Mr. Seckel does, in fact, have nformation material to this case or that is likely to lead to admissible evidence, would aJl defendant to use the rules of discovery as a litigation tactic rather than to obtain admissible evidence.

5. Moriover, the taking of this deposition would amount to the harassment of a disinterested non-party for the seemingly sole purpose of harassing and embarrassing the Plaintiff. _-

6. A deposition without some explanation of what the witness allegedly knows — not based on rumor or a secret source -- will simply waste the time and resources of all concerned.

Legal Argument¶

8. Discovery in Florida civil cases is permitted only as to matters which are relevant or which are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the case in

which the discovery is sought. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(6)(1); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995).¶

9. "Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to eliminate the element of surprise, to encourage the settlement of cases, to avoid costly litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pet-sell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Surf D, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). o. 2d 517 v. Vermette,

10. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court commented o li?e purpose discovery: of pretrial

Discovery was never intended to be used as in a manner that actually chills the ava witnesses; nor was it intended to make could effectively deny access to in$ resolve their disputes unjustly. tactical, tool to harass an adversary lity of information by non-party very process so expensive that it and witnesses or force parties to¶

Id. at 522.¶

11. The Court con • ued • explanation of why discovery must be used only for proper purposes:

To allow d overy hat is overly burdensome and that harasses, embarrasses, and annoys on 's versary would lead to a lack of public confidence in the credibility of th ci court process. The right to a jury trial in the constitution means nothing if the public has no faith in the process and if the cost and expense are so great that access is basically denied to all but the few who can afford it.¶

Id.¶

12. Likewise, in Allstate, the Court had reasoned:

Discovery of certain kinds of information 'may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature.' This includes 'cat out of the bag' material that could be used to injure another person or party outside the context of the litigation....¶

Id. at 94 (citations omitted). That Court, in quashing the district court's decision to permit discovery even after it had been established that such discovery was neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information, concluded that carte blanche discovery of irrelevant information ought not be sanctioned:¶

[a]though we cannot say that irrelevant materials sought in a discovery reqUest necessarily cause irreparable harm, we do not believe that a litigant is entitled carte blanche to irrelevant discovery.¶

Id. at 95.¶

il¶

13. Rule 1.280(c) affords the Court discretion to grant protective orders for good cause shown and to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, 'oppression, or undue burden / I or expense. Subsection (c) affords the court broad discretion/to limit or prohibit discovery in / order "to protect a party or person from annoy Nmparrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justice requires." Id.; se so itech Cargo v. J W. 817 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

14. Among other thia thi Court may enter an order that the requested discovery not be had at all. Rule 1.280(c)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P.; compare Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566,X8 (Flav 3d DCA 1995)(reversing trial court order denying deposition of material witn

e Rule has been successfully invoked to prevent invasion of privacy of nonparties as well as to prevent the dissemination of defamatory content. v. State, 827 So. 2d 1026, 1030-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(petition for certiorari granted to protect privacy interests); see also Pescod v. Wells Rd. Veterinary Med. Cir., Inc., 748 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (discovery protective order reasonable within the spectrum of Rule 1.280(c)).¶

16. In this case, the mere taking of the deposition constitutes waste and harassment. It is anticipated, given the general notice of taking deposition, that counsel to defendant will ask any and all manner of questions whether they are relevant to this litigation or not. The witness has no direct knowledge and will likely be intimidated or even feel obliged to search for answers he cannot know if required to give testimony at this time. ASatc

17. This type of discovery amounts to a litigation tactic which cit no relevant information and would, if permitted, merely serve to permit a strearrof ing questions about events which have not been shown to have occurred and which could be of no relevance to this case even if they had occurred. Significantly, to be relevant an examination of Mr. Seckel cannot be based on events that occurred well before Eckel became acquainted with the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, for the above sta a protective order to preventing the s, Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein moves for entry of the deposition of Alfred Seckel and for such other relief as the Court deems prope in the dTrcumstances.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY_ that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this,kday of May, 2011 to:¶

Jack Scarola, Esq. I Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West PaInt,Beach, FL 33409¶

Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012¶

Marc S. Nurik, Esq.
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr.
Fla. Bar No. 235954¶

W:\80743\MTNPRO61-re A Seckel-SA.docx¶

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

CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOO34BAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff(s),¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, J. individually, and L.M., individually,¶

Defendant(s).¶

TO: All counsel on the attached Counsel List¶

RE-NOTICE OF TAKING NlItO MON (Only change is via video-conference)¶

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that undersigned attorneys will take deposition(s) of:¶

NAME AND ADDR.Fi_SS TE AND TIME¶

Alfred Seckel 7 ,440" May 23, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. PST (12:00 pm EST)¶

LOCATION¶

Esquire Solutions Suite 500 1875 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067¶

upon oralexattlination before Esquire Deposition Services, a Notary Public; or any other officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of California. The oral examination is being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the applicable Statutes or Rules.¶

¶

[REDACTED] adv. Epstein
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXXMBAG
Notice of Taking Deposition
2¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
E-Mail and U.S. Mail to all Counsel on the attached list, this 22^nd day of April,
2011.¶

cc: Esquire Solutions¶

E-TRANSCRIPT, ASCII, CD AND/OR DVD REQUESTED¶

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT¶

In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, persons in need of a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Human Resources Manager, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., no later than seven days prior to the proceeding. Please telephone (561) 686-6300.¶

adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Notice of Taking Deposition 3¶

COUNSEL LIST¶

Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire jgoldberger@agwpa.com; smahoney@agwpa.com Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561)-659-8300 Fax: (561)-835-8691 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Jaffe, Weissing, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

L. Ackerman, Jr., Esqu. Burnett, P.A. 901 Point West 777 S Flagler Drive / West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6170 Phone: (561)-802-9044 Fax: (561)-802-9976 Attome fkeffrey Epstein AI¶

Marc . Nun marc@mrrilclaw.com Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-745-5849 Fax: (954)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein¶