IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.
/
### PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY E' MOTION TO COMPEL COUNTER-PLAINTIFF NUMBERS CED
moves to compel Counter-Plaintiff numbers of the documents he produced in this case, and states:
#### ODUCTION
On the one han Edwar s argues that Epstein should not have access to or use the documents conta' on disc its current trial counsel discovered in which conta' culla p ' tely 27,542 c-mails consecutively stamped. On the other hand, c • the produced to Epstein more than 21,000 pages of e-mails that were contained on that d' . That production occurred, however, more than seven years ago in 2011 when Epstein was represented by the firm. The disc is now under seal and Epstein's request for an in camera review of 47 e-mails is currently pending before the Court. records
has indisputably produced documents that are identified on his privilege log; specifically, the documents he produced in May 2012. Epstein, however, is unsure if produced other documents that he now claims are privileged, including the 47 exhibits which are the subject of his request for an in camera review. Because Epstein's current trial counsel did not represent Epstein in 2011, they are unable to determine which documents, in fact, we produced. Epstein's counsel have made repeated informal requests to counsel ntify the documents by number that produced, but couns ised to do so. Accordingly, Epstein respectfully moves this Court to compel Ed dentify by number the documents he produced in this case.
## ARGUM
has made the following representat ENT442 is production in this case:
- March 5, 2018, M' Mptio o rike Epstein's Untimely Supplemental Exhibits and to Strike All Thab4s a Any Reference to Documents Comziiiin Privilege Materials List n Eatvards' Privilege Log (D.E. 1251). claimed that he produ a es to Epstein.
- January 25, Tanner tll Jaffe produced 8,408 pages of non-privileged l documents t
- Febru 23, Jaffe produced 12,711 pages to Epstein divided into two s tegories: 5,027 pages of "attorneys' eyes only" documents and '7 84 of "irrelevant" documents; and 7, 2012 - produced 163 pages to Epstein.
- h 8, 2018, timeline provided to the Court during a hearing (Exhibit February 23, 2011 — Jaffe produced thousands of emails to Epstein including over 5,000 where privilege had been previously claimed and was now being produced as "attorneys' eyes only."
- May 7, 2012 produced 163 pages to Epstein.
- March 19, 2018, Jaffe's Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause filed In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 09-34791 (Br. D.E. 6328). Jaffe
claimed that "21.282 onesof emails have been permissibly and lawfully provided to Epstein":
- January 25, 2011 Jaffe produced 8,408 pages of non-privileged emails to Epstein;
- February 23, 2011 Jaffe produced 12,711 pages to Epstein divided into two separate categories: 5,027 pages of "attorneys' eyes only" documents and 7,684 pages of "irrelevant" documents; and
- May 8, 2012 produced 163 pages to Epstein.
If has already produced the 47 exhibits which are the subject of request for the Court's in camera review, then there is no work for this Court to r Epstein nor the Court, however, can make that determination based simply on Ed 0ad statements that he has not produced any documents from his privilege log. tat above, to the contrary, has produced documents from his privilege lo e ent of what he has produced, however, is unknown because Epstein's current d not represent Epstein when the documents were produced and they cannot de ils" files what was actually produced in this case. To clarify for bo tein d the Court, Epstein's counsel asked counsel on multiple occasions to number all documents that were produced. counsel, however, very request to do so. It will save the Court time and not waste judicial resources 'jtermination can first be made of what numbers, in fact, allegedl ek duced, thereby eliminating the Court's review if documents have, in fact,
# CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Epstein respectfully requests that the Court order number the documents he has allegedly produced in this case. to identify by
## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on June 21, 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 930 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 847-4408; (561) 855-2891 \[fax)
By: /s/ Scott J. Link Scott J. Link (FBN 60299 Kara Berard Rockenbac 44903) Primary: .tteli Primary: K.raclin kl.w.com Secondary: cklaw.com Secondary: inkrocklaw.com
r Plaintiff7Counter-Defendant
### SERVICE LIST
| 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
mep@searcylaw.com
jsx@searcylaw.com
dvitale@searcylaw.com
scarolateam@searcylaw.com
terryteam@searcylaw.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
J. [REDACTED]
| Philip M. Burlington
Nichole J. Segal
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
Courthouse Commons, Suite 350
444 West Railroad Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
pmb@FLAppellateLaw.com
njs@FLAppellateLaw.com
kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
Pottinger LLC
425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268
brad@epllc.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]
| Marc S. Nurik
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E. Bro [REDACTED] Boulevard, Suite 700
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
marc@nuriklaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein
|
| Jack A. Goldberger
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
jgoldberger@agwpa.com
smahoney@agwpa.com
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein
| Paul Cassell
383 S. University
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
cassellp@law.utah.edu
Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe
|
| | Jay Howell
Jay Howell & Associates
644 Cesery Blvd., Suite 250
Jacksonville, FL 32211
jayhowell.com
Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe
|
# EXHIBIT A
NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
**[REDACTED] v. Epstein Timeline**
| April 17, 2010 | Epstein propounded a broad subpoena to the Trustee for RRA as an interested party in the bankruptcy case of In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 09-34791-RBR, requesting tens of thousands of emails (the subpoena was directed to the bankruptcy trustee because the trustee was in possession of all RRA emails).
Epstein filed a Motion to Compel that production from the trustee. DE 807 |
| ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| July 19, 2010 | LM (one of Epstein's victims) filed an objection and amended motion for protective order, DE 819, explaining that the emails requested were barred from disclosure based on privilege and relevance grounds. |
| August 13, 2010 | Judge Rey in the bankruptcy action entered an order regarding production of the emails to a special [REDACTED]. Judge Carney, appointed to oversee the emails produced and to prepare a privilege log. DE 888 |
| September 20, 2010 | After having received more than 27,000 emails Special [REDACTED] Carney moved for clarification of the Order, and made suggestions that LM's attorneys which included Edwards were in a better position to create a privilege log. |
| September 27, 2010 | [REDACTED] moved for protective order through counsel Jack Scarola, adopting LM's arguments for a protective order and invoking work-product privilege. DE 1022. |
| September 30, 2010 | LM joined in that DE 1022 motion and requested further clarification. DE 1038. |
| October 13, 2010 | Hearing on Motion to Clarify before Robert Carney |
| October 15, 2010 | The bankruptcy court entered an Order which clarified its earlier Order. DE 1068, requiring that the trustee provide the emails at issue to [REDACTED] Jaffe Weissing [REDACTED] Fistos Lehrman ([REDACTED] firm at the time which was representing LM) and requesting FJWEFL prepare the log. The order also provided a procedure for the special [REDACTED] to hold a hearing about assertions of privilege. Berger [REDACTED] man as counsel for the RRA Bankruptcy Trustee delivers the disc to [REDACTED] to make copies for delivery to FJWEFL to prepare privilege log. |
| October 20, 2010 | Bankruptcy court cancelled the hearing on the motion for protective order. DE 1077. |
| November 23, 2010 | Epstein files amended privilege log. |
| November 30, 2010 | Judge Ray's Order:
[T]he law firm of [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Burnett, P.A., will print a hard copy of all of the documents contained on the discs with [REDACTED] numbers added, and will provide a set of copied, stamped documents to the Special [REDACTED] and an identical set to [REDACTED], who will use same to create its privilege log... [REDACTED] will not retain any copies of the documents contained on the discs provided to it, nor shall any images or copies of said documents be retained in the memory of [REDACTED] copiers. Should it be determined that [REDACTED] or Epstein retained images or copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the |
| | Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad [REDACTED] or his client. |
| ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| December 16, 2010 | LM filed a motion requesting a stay of the Order directing the preparation of a privilege log until after the time when the State court ruled on the then pending Motion for Summary Judgment. DE 1236 |
| December 22, 2010 | Bankruptcy court entered an order extending the time for production of the privilege log until January 31, 2011. DE 1260 |
| January 26, 2011 | FJWEFL produced a privilege log, and the sufficiency of that log was challenged by Epstein in the bankruptcy court. DE 1442. |
| February 8, 2011 | Epstein Motion to Compel/Motion to Determine if Privilege Claims are Waived for failure to provide a privilege log. |
| February 23, 2011 | FJWEFL produced an updated privilege log (the current privilege log) detailing the emails where privilege was being maintained, and also produced thousands of emails including over 5,000 where privilege had been previously claimed and was now being produced "attorney's eyes only." Those are NOT the emails that were on the privilege log as those on the log were never turned over. |
| March 30, 2011 | Judge [REDACTED] entered an order staying the subpoena to the trustee. See Scarola's letter to Judge Carney. |
| May 27, 2011 | Order setting hearing on all motions relating to discovery and privilege issues for July 13, 2011. |
| April 7, 2011 | Letter from Scarola to Silver regarding agreement to turn 27,000 documents over to Conrad Scherer |
| April 8, 2011 | Letter from Scherer to Scarola confirming agreement regarding emails. |
| April 10, 2011 | James Silver and Scarola email confirmation of agreement to be presented to the court on April 11, 2011. |
| April 11, 2011 | Email from Brad [REDACTED] to paralegal stating: According to our agreement with Scherer, we are going to turn over "for attys eyes only" all of the emails produced to us that fall into a category requested in their duces tecum. We told them we will produce that by way of disc. I know that we have scanned in the documents that we produced to Epstein already, so those will be easy to place on disc. We need to scan those documents that have not yet been turned over into our system but first I want to review them to see if any do not fall into a requested category before scanning them in to be produced. |
| June 7, 2011 | Letter from Scherer to Jaffe regarding the copying of 27,000 emails |
| June 24, 2011 | Jonathan Castanu of Contrad & Scherer picks up the hard disk drive containing RRA emails relating to Epstein documents. |
| July 12, 2011 | Epstein's Motion for Leave to Use attorneys eyes only documents produced under confidentiality agreement. (Granted by Agreement)—Does not include privileged documents. |
| July 14, 2011 | [REDACTED] protective order granted. Epstein request for all emails is overbroad and not necessarily calculated to lead to admissible evidence. |
| March 9, 2012 | Epstein Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order relating to the subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee |
| --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| April 10, 2012 | Order requiring [redacted] to produce any non-privileged documents as identified in paragraph 13 of [redacted] Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order. (Communications with Fed. Gov't and Press) |
| April 11, 2012 | Epstein files [redacted] Privilege Log in this case. |
| April 11, 2012 | Epstein Motion to Compel production of documents from [redacted] and for Sanctions. |
| April 23, 2012 | [redacted] Motion to Withdraw |
| May 2, 2012 | Agreed Order on [redacted] Withdraw |
| May 7, 2012 | [redacted] produces 163 pages of additional responsive documents in compliance with April 10, 2012 Order (Communications with Fed. Gov't and press) |
| May 8, 2012 | [redacted] Order requiring better privilege log |
| May 15, 2012 | [redacted] Motion for Clarification on discovery issues. |
| May 15, 2012 | Epstein Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions |
| May 30, 2012 | Epstein Amended Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions |
| June 19, 2012 | Order Setting hearing on Motion for Clarification. |
| August 3, 2012 | Hearing on motion for clarification and discovery issues. |
| August 16, 2012 | Epstein dismisses case against [redacted] without prejudice. |
| August 17, 2012 | [redacted] grants our Motion for Clarification and vacates his 5/8/12 order and orders, inter alia, that we file an amended privilege log within 10 days. Addressing only communications between RRA and Federal Government or news reporters. |