Draft: efta02762364

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

CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

VS.¶

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

Defendant,¶

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTc ISED OMNIBUS MOTION IN LI¶

Counter-Plaintiff, J. . by a through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Oppositions to Jeffrey Est s Revvised Omnibus Motion in Limine, and as grounds therefor states as follows:,S )¶

Summary¶

Jeffrey Epstein's `Epstein Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine makes a desperate, 32 page attempt to ch e the cts of this case in order to alter ea) burden of proof. Ep cl r purpose is to avoid the admission of evidence that he lacked probable cause t tl HL Underlying claims against . Prior to addressing and refuting Epstein's motion in tail, it is important that burden in proving his malicious prosecution claim is accurately defined.¶

believe that has the burden to prove that there was no reasonable basis for Epstein to manufactured and fabricated the claims was pursuing on behalf of¶

clients against Epstein and that purpose in creating false claims was to knowingly aid in the perpetration of a massive Ponzi scheme. Since Epstein has blocked relevant discovery through 5th Amendment privilege assertions into what he knew at the time he syed and since he has expressly chosen not to assert an advice of counsel thereby preserving his attorney-client privilege, must prove the cause element through circumstantial evidence. The most compellin defense the probable tial evidence as to what Epstein knew are the facts relating to what Epstein, pstem could not reasonably believe "manufactured"/"ginned up"/ "crafted" c ed" claims against Epstein if Epstein did what Mr. alleged he did. A 'It ,'Plaintiff burden of proof is properly described as follo?c, contends that the¶

• I. Plaintiff starts by p of L.M., E.W. and Jane D procedures he follow complete absence o scheme. g th truth of the claims he brought on behalf priety of the discovery he pursued and the prosecution of those claims as well as the f any knowledge of or participation in the Ponzi purpose he P ntiff will prove the leaders!. had in
• 2. Then, to estab motive to target for extortionist the jo* t osecution effort of the multiple civil claims ing prosecuted against E their attendant punitive damage exposure as well as the Crime Rights Act case challen it E stein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, as spearheaded by and exposes Epstein to lengthy ration for his extensive history of child molestations.
• 3. Having proven the truth of Epstein's serial child molestation, the Plaintiff meets his initial burden of establishing the absence ti aofprobable cause. Proof of ir,n's motive to file false claims against (to extort Mr. into abandoning or compromising e interests o is clients) while not necessary to establishing a prima facia case corroborates the absence of probable cause, the existence of malice, and the foundation for an award of punitive damages.

1. 4. The burden then shifts to Epstein. Epstein must attempt to establish either that the claims he brought against Brad [REDACTED] were true or must establish that even though his claims were not true he, nevertheless, had a reasonable basis to believe the claims against [REDACTED] were true- that is, that Epstein reasonably believed the claims [REDACTED] was pursuing on behalf of LM, EW and Jane Doe against him were fabricated AND reasonably believed that [REDACTED] Edwards was prosecuting these fabricated claims as a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme. He must prove both to escape liability, but obviously, he must do so without relying on evidence that he has withheld through his earlier privilege assertions. In addition, Epstein faces the further obstacles of:
   5. i. His complete failure to defend against [REDACTED] Motion for Summary Judgment;
   6. ii. The res judicata effect of his voluntary dismissal of the claims against [REDACTED] [REDACTED]
   7. iii. The absolute bar of the litigation privilege to support any damage claim arising out of Edwards' litigation conduct in the child molestation cases;
   8. iv. The fact that if the molestation cases were not fabricated, Epstein could not have been damaged by a fraud perpetrated without his knowledge against third parties with whom he never had any relationship;
   9. v. His criminal guilty pleas; and
   10. vi. His payment of $5.5 million in civil settlements on [REDACTED] Edwards's three cases alone, which are the cases Epstein claims were fabricated.

In the context of this proper understanding of [REDACTED] burden of proof order, Plaintiff [REDACTED] submits the following response to Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine.¶

A. Epstein Has Repeatedly Made Clear That He Alleged That [REDACTED] Cases Were "Manufactured" / "Ginned Up" / "Crafted" / "Fabricated"¶

The foundation upon which Defendant Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine is built begins with the following claims:¶

1. 1. "This case is not, and has never been, about whether or not the claims filed in 2008 against Epstein by [REDACTED] clients are true." Mot. in Limine at p. 2.

2. Epstein never alleged "that did anything improper in regard to the conduct of this limitation until after joined RRA. Id. (emphasis in original).

These assertions are demonstrably false and are simply another attempt ` b Epstein to retroactively change the allegations in his December 7, 2009 Initial Complaint sworn testimony that Epstein gave in his March 17, 2010 deposition. es the record citations contained in his Supplement to Motion in Limine Add ing pe of Admissible Evidence (a copy of which is attached as an Appendix to this or purposes of convenient reference), which lays out in detail that the overridin V eof Epstein's claims against was that had "manufactured" 1 4h behalf of his clients, which had "minimal to no value" and were instead g by for the "sole purpose" of knowingly funding Rothstein's Ponzi S S e, e.g..M 1 Supp. Mot. in Limine at p. 2. To now claim that this case "is n ii... t; h never been, about whether or not" a clients' claims were true is therefore be cl b ) the allegations contained in Epstein's Initial Complaint.¶

Moreover, if Epst not alleged that the cases being pursued against him by were fabricated, ein would have no claim against based only upon Epstein's allegation Qf ' participation in Rothstein's Ponzi scheme for at least two reasons. First, ion conduct is absolutely privileged under Florida law. See, e.g., Echevarria, kfcCalla, Raymer, & Frappier v. M, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Second, Epstein was not a victim of the Ponzi scheme and therefore he suffered no legally cognizable damage as a result of Rothstein's misconduct. Epstein therefore had to, and in fact did, allege that the lawsuits being pursued by were fabricated. Epstein even sued one of his victims, L.M., and in the Initial¶

Complaint he explicitly stated that the sexual contact he engaged in with L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe was "knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual." Initial Complaint at I 49.¶

Furthermore, although Epstein now alleges that his claims only relate to wo performed by while an attorney at RRA beginning in April 2009, that is simply wards filed the victims' cases in 2008, before he joined RRA. pled fo $50,000,000 when he filed the initial lawsuits in 2008, before he j began serving discovery related to the $15 million bond issuance ory h 23, 2009, before he joined RRA.' Yet all of these litigation actions by a w h ed his time at RRA, are cited by Epstein as "evidence" that was an activ i t in the Ponzi scheme that Rothstein began in 2005 (when was still at omey's Office). Thus, although Epstein would like to replead his allegations to wards' six (6) month tenure at RRA, that has never been what this case is abou¶

B. Epstein Misunderstant thjJDifference Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence¶

Epstein's R 'sod djnnibus Motion in Limine also builds its foundation on the following demonstrably < as 'on, references to which are replete throughout the motion:¶

to Epstein, the third support on which he rests his defense is that no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, regarding whether Epstein had¶

attached hereto as Exhibit '1'. As the Court will recall, Epstein mak.nucigMubsequent bond motion filed in I A copy of the First Request for Admissions served on Epstein by in the Jane Doe federal case is July as evidence that was "pumping" his clients' "manufactured" claims to further the Rothstein was takiniacovery on the bond issue in March on behalf of Ponzi scheme. Yet as this March 2 009 pleading shows, of 2009, before he started at RRA. The pleading is clearly and Associates, LLC.¶

"probable cause" to file the underlying claims in this action, or whether he acted with "malice."See, e.g., Mot. in Limine at p. 1 ("In recent deposition testimony, 1M admitted that he has no evidence of Epstein's intent ...').¶

Epstein is correct that apart from Epstein's obvious knowledge of o riminal conduct, noes not have direct evidence as to what was in Epste t the time he filed this malicious lawsuit (because Epstein has repeatedly hidden b attorney-client privileges). However, Amendment and has, and inteuVut forward, an abundance of circumstantial evidence as to both probable cause and m e, .g., Dep. Tr. at pages 272-76. Specifically, that Epstein committed all t 4 and therefore Epstein could not have had Zrause to initiate this lawsuit, and in fact Epstein's motive was to instead extorts 7 And it is that very circumstantial evidence that Epstein's Revised Omnibus Moti e improperly asks this Court to exclude. rimes that he was being accused of,¶

C. Epstein's Remaining g Blocks Crumble Under the Weight of the Law and the Uncontested ecord acts¶

After chan g the derlying facts to suit his desired narrative and making the obviously incorrect ass th Epstei next 30-odd pages attempting to keep out any and all circumstantial evidence that Edwar s is clearly entitled to introduce to meet his burden of proof. Specifically, Epstein continues building his house on the following blocks: has "no evidence" to prove either probable cause or malice,¶

3. The discovery pursued by was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and therefore, supports the conclusion that was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme.

4. Evidence of other claims against Epstein and the criminal charges against him are irrelevant to any pending issue.

5. Exhibits listed by are inadmissible hearsay.

had no legiti e and therefore supports the conclusion that was a knowing t in the Ponzi scheme. 6. The federal lawsuit filed by¶

7. cannot rely on any adverse inference n Epstein's 5'h Amendment assertions.

Every one of those blocks crumbles under of any reasonable application of the law to the uncontested record evidence.¶

• i. The discovery pursued adlejTEdwards was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence n absence of a direct link to the conduct alleged by three an4flt4 i11 S ents.

Setting aside the fact Itein suffered no cognizable legal damage as a result of the discovery pursued by Ed due to the litigation privilege), all discovery pursued by on beh his clients was appropriate given: (1) the pending Punitive Damage claim against A.7. Ep t Florida Statutes § 90.404(2)(a), which permits similar fact evidence of other wrongs, acts to be introduced into evidence to prove a material fact at issue (such as motive); (3) the 18 USC 2255 Federal claims requiring a federal interstate nexus; and (4) Federal Rule of Evidence 415, which makes evidence of prior sexual molestations admissible.¶

Defendant Epstein conveniently ignores all four factors listed above. As an example, on page 4 of his Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine, Epstein claims that the following questions posed to Epstein at his 2009 deposition were "outrageous and irrelevant":¶

Q (by a "Mr. Epstein, did you ever care about any of the feels o e minor girls that you were engaging in sex with?"¶

Q (by ': "Isn't it true that at the time you were inserti gers into the vagina of these little kids, all you cared about w .wn sexual gratification?"¶

These questions are clearly relevant to the victims' punitivo,damage claims. Additionally, as was actively seeking to overturn Eps and was a lead attorney quarterbacking the civil lawsuits being prosecut e\ a Epstein, evidence and testimony related to Epstein's potential criminal and civiTli bi ity as a result of his actions is clearly relevant to establish his motive in filj cause and malice). al Complaint (which goes to both probable¶

ii The Exhi that pstein Challenges are Not Hearsay When They Are Not Being Offered to the Truth of the Matters Asserted.¶

Exhibits law enforcement investigative reports, witness statements, depositions in other casesta raft flight logs, are not inadmissible hearsay2 because they are not offered to¶

^a Somewhat ironically, Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine attempts to demonstrate Epstein's probable cause to initiate this lawsuit by relying on a variety of media articles and unswom pleadings, all of which are inadmissible hearsay unless offered for the sole purpose of proving a basis for Epstein's state of mind - a reasonable belief of i guilt even if he was actually innocent. Unfortunately for Epstein, no such conclusion can be drawn from the sources he cites, because none of the sources purportedly relied upon . b E stein name IFFI as a coconspirator in the Ponzi scheme that Rothstein ran from 2005 to 2009. And was only at or six (6) months in 2009, after the Ponzi scheme had been running for years. (at least, actor ing to the hearsay Epstein purports to have relied upon in filing this claim). Tellingly, Epstein did not name Rosenfeldt or Adler, the other named partners at RRA, or former Circuit Court Judge William Berger, active RRA co-counsel in the Epstein cases who is actually mentioned in one of the articles, as defendants in t is ma icious lawsuit. Only M, the attorney who was¶

prove the truth of the matters asserted. Rather they are evidence of what relied on to form the reasonable basis for his pursuit of discovery calculated to lead to admissible evidence. That is, these exhibits establish the foundation for state of mind in !eying, for example, that specific individuals were passengers on Epstein's private pl her with minors who were transported interstate for purposes of sexual abuse and n. Certainly, Epstein cannot claim that "sought inflammatory discov as not relevant to clients' allegations against Epstein," Mot. in Limin cta, and then object to the very exhibits that establish why the discovery was being p add Exhibit related to Epstein's criminal conviction an d sex offender status is admissible to establish Epstein's motive to file this malici ts I t against to avoid imprisonment by intimidating any other victims from 4c)....e ng frifward. e first place. Moreover, the¶

• iii. The 234-page fede ' filed by hada well -justified purpose pursuant to the rms a conditions o Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and the timing of its n as dictated by an expiring statute of limitation.

Epstein makes m he fact that filed a second, federal lawsuit on behalf of L.M. in the su 2009. See, e.g., Mot. in Limine at p. 2 (referring to the L.M.'s federal action as a "dupl it"). According to Epstein, this lawsuit was filed for the "sole purpose" of furthenn t e onzi scheme. As explained in painstaking detail in his November 10, 2017 deposition, however, the real purpose behind the L.M. federal lawsuit was two-fold: (1) to take advantage of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, which prevented Epstein from contesting liability for any civil action brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2255, and (2) to prevent the statute of¶

actively pursuing multi-million dollar civil actions and the federal action to invalidate the NPA was targeted by Epstein.¶

limitations from running on L.M.'s claims.3 And as testified, the state and federal L.M. lawsuits sought entirely different relief.¶

Specifically, filed the 2009 federal action because Epstein had co mined 156 separate acts of sexual assault against L.M. while she was still a minor. It was ' position that, under Epstein's NPA, L.M. was entitled to compensation for each se ult. legal theory was that the NPA could not possibly only require Epst a statutory penalty for the first sexual assault, and then allow Epstein to commit t 155 sexual assaults for free. Obviously, will be able to establish to the mem ry that Epstein in fact sexually assaulted L.M. 156 times, so Epstein could not based his probable cause on this lawsuit. But given that Epstein has challeng y of this lawsuit and contended that it was filed for the "sole purpose" of pumpin nzi heme, must be permitted to establish that he had a well-justified purpo g this relief: to avoid the statute of limitations and to take advantage of Epstein's N details of which Epstein was fully aware of when he filed the malicious Initial Com gainst¶

Finally, 'n's argument that the scrivener's error regarding the filing of the action under "Es t, red herring because the case was quickly consolidated with the other federal actions rn against Epstein, and he actively defended the case without being formally served. That consolidation also undermines Epstein's Assertion that he was damaged by the need to incur attorney's fees in responding to federal action, because regardless of the filing of the¶

³ A copy of the relevant portions of deposition transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit '2'. [page 317-324].¶

federal claim on behalf of L.M., the discovery was being pursued simultaneously by other attorneys with other cases, the legitimacy of which has never been and could not be cancelled.¶

iv. is Entitled to an Adverse Inference Jury Instruction on stein's 9 Amendment Assertions.¶

Every authority relied upon by Epstein to challenge the ability to draw erse inferences from Epstein's assertions of his Fifth Amendment right to remain sil ssly qualifies the limitation advanced by Epstein — it applies only when the assertion o e ifth Amendment right is the stele basis supporting the inference.Wor example, E, and agrees, that the Fourth District Court of Appeal permits an adv e instruction when a defendant "refuse[s] to testify in response to probative evi end against them ..." See Mot. in Limine at p. 17 (citing Fraser v. Sec. & kw. Co, 5 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). An appropriate jury instruction addressi fifth amendment assertions in t op ion on drawing adverse inferences from Epstein's¶

Here, there is ab ut dant oivan overwhelming evidence to support the inferences sought to be drawn. Three obv* ex pies should suffice: Epstein pled guilty to two felonies related to the sexual mole oD children and voluntarily entered into an agreement with the federal gove en confessing his serial molestation. In addition, when called upon to support his claims aga t in response to Motion for Summary Judgment, he¶

also cites to the Coquina Investments v. Rothstein case for the incorrect proposition that use Epstein's Sth Amendment assertion as circumstantial evidence related to probable cause and malice. ee ot. in Limine at p. 20. Yet Coquina concerned whether an adverse inference could be drawn against TD Bank when it was the bank's employee, Mr. Spinosa, asserted the 56 Amendment privilege. The Court in that case held that Spinosa's Sn' Amendment assertions were not a proper basis for finding defendant TD Bank liable. Here, however, Epstein is both the asserter of the privilege and the defendant against whom the adverse inference is sought to be applied.¶

completely failed to produce any evidence to support his claims and dismissed all of his false and malicious assertions. Finally, after full public disclosure of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme and after his malicious attempt to extort [REDACTED] failed, Epstein paid $5.5 million to settle the three cases he alleged that [REDACTED] had fabricated and were worthless.¶

Conclusion¶

For the foregoing reasons, every element of Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine should be denied.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 22^nd day of November, 2017.¶

JACK SCAROLA
Florida Bar No.: 169440
DAVID P. VITALE JR.
Florida Bar No.: 115179
Attorney E-Mail(s): jsx@searcylaw.com and
mmccann@searcylaw.com
Primary E-Mail: ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9451
Attorneys for [REDACTED]¶

COUNSEL LIST¶

[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esquire
staff.efile@pathtojustice.com
425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820
Fax: (954)-524-2822
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

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

Nichole J. Segal, Esquire
njs@FLAppellateLaw.com; kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-721-0400
Fax:
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Scott J. Link, Esquire
Eservice@linkrocklaw.com; Scott@linkrocklaw.com; Kara@linkrocklaw.com;
Angela@linkrocklaw.com; Tanya@linkrocklaw.com; tina@linkrocklaw.com
Link & Rockenbach, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-727-3600
Fax: (561)-727-3601
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶

Marc S. Nurik, Esquire
marc@nuriklaw.com¶

Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

Response in Opposition to Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine¶

Page 14 of 14¶

One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700¶

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301¶

Phone: (954)-745-5849¶

Fax: (954)-745-3556¶

Attorneys for Scott Rothstein¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

¶

CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRAMOHNSON¶

JANE DOE,¶

Plaintiff¶

vs.¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Defendant¶

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO C 0 EkDANT¶

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, by and through her undersigned counsel, and files this her First Request for Admissions to the Defendant; JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and requests said Defendant admit or deny the following facts ?,41Sn4ccordance, with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:¶

DEFINITIONS¶

The term "you" meanslprefers to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN.¶

O ADMISSIONS¶

• 1. Y'o'ur net worth is greater than $10 million.
• 2. Your net worth is greater than $50 million.
• 3. Your net worth is greater than $100 million.
• 4. Your net worth is greater than $500 million.

¶

5. Your net worth is greater than $1 billion.

6. Since being incarcerated you have, directly or indirectly (through the services or assistance of other persons), conveyed money or assets in an attempt to insulate or protect your money or assets from being captured in any civil lawsuits filed against you.

7. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property in the Caribbean.

8. You own or control, directly or indirectly, real estate property inn foreign countries.

9. In the last 2 years you have transferred assets and/or mon financial instruments to countries outside the United States.

10. You have provided financial support to the modeli -icy MC2.

11. You committed sexual assault against Plainti

12. You committed battery against Plainti

13. You digitally penetrated Plaintiff(w enStyr s as a minor.

14. You offered Plaintiff more contingent upon her having sex with you or giving you oral sex.

15. You intended to tiff when you committed these sexual acts against her.

16. You knew Pla as under the age of 16 when you sexually touched and fondled her. ?S'

17. O int d to hire investigators to intimidate and harass Plaintiff during this c ⁿ litigation.

18. You were engaged in the act of trafficking minors across state or country borders for the purposes of sex or prostitution between 2000 and the present.

19. You coerced Plaintiff into being a prostitute and remaining in prostitution.

• 20. You are guilty of the following offenses against Jane Doe:
  • A. Procuring a minor for the purpose of prostitution as defined in F.S. 796.03
  • B. Battery as defined by Florida Statutes
  • C. Sexual Battery
• 21. You are moving significant financial assets overseas, outside of the direct territorial reach of the U.S. and Florida Courts.
• 22. You are making asset transfers with the intent to defeat any judgmeawhattight be entered against you in this or similar cases.
• 23. You currently have the ability to post a bond of $15 mill* to satiSfy a judgment in this case without financial or other difficulty.

CERTIFICATE OF SEAIVP < C¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true an opy of the above and foregoing has I been provided via United States mail to the f4t1 wing addressees, this day of March, 2009.¶

Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike. Esquire Burman, Critton, Luttier & C rtyin, LLP 515 North Flagler Driv Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 rcritaiThciclaw.iorn mpikerabc1clawscom¶

Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jagescabellsouth.net¶

Michael R. Tein, Esquire
[REDACTED] Tein, P.L.
3059 Grand Avenue
Suite 340
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
tein@lewistein.com¶

Respectfully Submitted,¶

THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD [REDACTED] &
ASSOCIATES, LLC¶

By:¶

Brad [REDACTED], Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Florida Bar No. 542075
2028 [REDACTED] Street
Suite 202
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Telephone: 954-414-8033
Facsimile: 954-924-1530
E-Mail: be@bradedwardslaw.com¶

Paul G. Cassell
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pro Hac Vice
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu¶

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

Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB¶

I;¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; S individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.¶

VOLgley¶

VIDEO";es5S4 ITION¶

Ag979.11Y¶

C e)n Taken on Behalf of Plaintiff¶

't ta¶

Friday, November 10th, 2017 10:02 a.m. - 6:16 p.m. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409¶

Examination of the witness taken before¶

Sonja D. Palm Beach Reportinilrvice, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ;2: (561) 471-2995¶

non-prosecution agreement with the federal government, • there was a provision within that agreement that Said 3 that if one of his oscura brought a case against him I exclusively under 18 USC 2255, then only under tnat 5 circumstance of bringing that case exclusively under a that count would Jeffrey Epste:n not contest liability • and agree to a minimum statutory damage amount Of • 5150,000. He later contested and said that an earlier application of the statute applied and It should only ;') be $50.000.¶

But nOnethele$S, that was the general principle. That Statute did not allow for punitive damages. AM as f just explained, we assessed the :4 punitive damages as being extraordinary in cm case.¶

So that's rite answer to that Question in .6 tarn, of the difference of the damages that we were Claiming in the state action, which contained a to 5 2i 22 claim for punitive damages and proceeded under common law theories of battery or intentional affliction, emotional distress. Those kinds of things in the federal claim was co proceed under 16 USC 2255.¶

23 24 25 What happened in the summer of 2009 was that it was realized -- like I said, not by me -- it was initiallyrealized by Mr. Cassell. but : agreed.¶

32 22 24 25 A Well. the statute of limitations in any sense s 5 only have so long from the time that the tort or the crime la °smutted to bring a claim, Otivarwl$0 it's waived forever. So whet we did rot want to do is fail to bring the claim under 2255 and that claim expire at her 21st birthday, and it ultimately be a more beneficial claim to have brought and us not have the ability to bring it any more. Because it was also around that same time that we began to believe that -- there was an argument -- and perhaps the right atument -- the argument that 1 still believe¶

that L.M.'s case was proceeding only in a and chat we had not taken advantage a provision in the non-prosecution a would allow for statutory dams s lhde 2255, and that L.M.'s birthday -- 21 believe -- was coming up in Augu that tho statute of limitations run -- or begin to run at that birthday for bra trig he 2255 claims.¶

Q Exp n to the es and gentlemen of the jury, if wow lease, what the statute of hole app ed under the circumstance meant. Why' IL:cameo: the statute of 1 'air¶

1 a 0 10 A If that determination was made in federal court, she would not have been shielded in state court, but we could have dismissed the state court claim and only proceeded under the federal case. The: we would be presenting a case in front of the jury were all of the -- lot's call it dirt that Jeffrey Epstein had dug up about L.M. would not be -- would not all have to cone into evidence, and we could save her sate of the problems that we assessed as being problems with her case.¶

i2 li :4 Q You spoke about the statute of limitatio,., and L.M. turning 21. What is the statute of limitations that applies in a federal 18 1.M 2255 Cairn?¶

15 16 it 19 14 20 21 A From recollection, there were two readings Of the statute. I haven't seen the statute in a long time -- at least in a while -- but it's -- it uses sons language that it's three years from the date that the disability no longer exists, which we interpret as her being a minor. So I think it's three years from the time that she's no longer a manor.¶

22 21 24 So at the tuns she turned 21. there was an argument that her 2255 claims, if we Chose to proceed under them, would have expired.¶

25 Q Did the timing of the filing of i¶

to this day prObably we would win on, but it never got tested -- was that while Jaffrey Epstein. under 2255, would have to agree -- if you exclusively sum a him under that -- would have to agree to met:: to i liability and to statutory minimum damages of 2 150.000. It was his position that that would be the mxinum regardless of the number of tines that he t molested that particular person. 5 In L.M.'s circumstance. she had been 10 Molested by him for years and dozens and dozens and it dozens of tines. I don't know how man tires. :: maybe 100 times while a minor. So we tatted to IN think, you know what, if you set of these 14 cases for $150,000, it's g ndetv uing this 15 case. If he has to admi lity and you can la nult:ply 150.000 tuna- e of offenses that 15 he committed, it tim from having to is endure catenate discov y and intimidation that :9 they -- especial -- was having CO endure. 20 And if hat argument, then that'S definite:), 5, thepe try this case, especially for L.X. that difference? Why would L.N. be rote abase co which she was subjected in the proceeding :f the doter:Wien= was made proceed in federal court under USG 2255?¶

1 federal action have anything to do with any factor,
2 other than those that you have just described, the
3 potential expiration of the statute of limitations
4 and your desire to take advantage of the provisions
5 of the non-prosecution agreement as a potential
6 alternative to the state court claim?¶

7 A That is the only reason that we filed it at
8 that time.¶

9 Q Did Scott Rothstein have any role
10 whatsoever in that decision-making process?¶

11 A He never had any role in any decision-making
12 process with anything to do with any of these cases, so
13 no.¶

14 Q Did you become aware of the fact that your
15 Epstein-related files at some point in time had been
16 requested by Scott Rothstein?¶

17 A Yes.¶

18 Q How did you become aware of that?¶

19 A I think Mike told me -- Fisten.¶

20 Q Was there any explanation offered as to why
21 Scott Rothstein wanted to see the Epstein-related
22 files?¶

23 A That if these cases went to trial, he wanted
24 to try the cases with me.¶

25 Q He who?¶

1 A He, Scott Rothstein, wanted to try the case
2 with me. That's the explanation that I was given.¶

3 Q And was there anything suspicious about the
4 head partner in the firm telling you that in this
5 high-profile case he wanted to be part of the
6 prosecution team?¶

7 A No. If my associate brought in a
8 high-profile case right now, I would be the one to try
9 the case, despite the fact that she may be the only one
10 who knows anything about it. So there's nothing
11 suspicious about that.¶

12 Q Files got returned to you?¶

13 A Yes, files did get returned to me.¶

14 Q And -- was there anything about the request
15 for review of the files on the basis that Scott
16 Rothstein was considering participating in the
17 prosecution of those claims that aroused any
18 suspicion on your part?¶

19 A No.¶

20 Q Was there anything else that went on in the
21 short period of time that you were in that law firm
22 that gave any cause for you to suspect that your
23 files were being used in any way, directly or
24 indirectly, in connection with any illegal activity
25 of any kind?¶

1 A No. I was just a lawyer just working my case
2 and trying to prove my case. That's it. I wasn't
3 concerned with whatever other signals or signs there
4 were. But there weren't any. The most suspicious
5 thing was, there were police officers walking the
6 hallway. But police officers in the building didn't
7 give me that type of suspicion. It was an unnecessary
8 degree of security over the law firm, at best. But
9 with these files or any of the files, no suspicion
10 whatsoever.¶

11 Q Who were your coworkers in that law firm?
12 Who were the other lawyers that you were working
13 with?¶

14 A Just generally who was in the law firm?¶

15 Q Yeah. Give us a general description of the
16 quality of the people that were working for
17 Rothstein, [REDACTED] filed a Adler during the period of
18 time that you became associated with the firm.¶

19 A Well, while I was at the firm, I worked with
20 Bill Berger, who had just come off the bench. He was a
21 judge.¶

22 Q There's been a number of references to Bill
23 Berger having just come off the bench. Was Judge
24 Berger a respected member of the judiciary in Palm
25 Beach County?¶

1 A Very much so, and that's why I welcomed him
2 to help with the file.¶

3 Q Did he leave under any circumstances that
4 gave rise to any suspicion whatsoever?¶

5 MR. LINK: Object to the form.¶

6 THE WITNESS: Not at all.¶

7 BY MR. SCAROLA:¶

8 Q Who were the other people that you were
9 working with?¶

10 A Like I said, I conducted -- I ran the files.
11 But other people --¶

12 Q When I say working with, I'm not talking
13 about limiting that question to people who worked on
14 the Epstein files. Who were the other folks that
15 were a part of this firm?¶

16 A Steve Jaffe, Gary [REDACTED], Matt Weissing.
17 Gary's [REDACTED] father was an appellate judge. In
18 fact, I think he was still on the bench then when we
19 were working there together. Gary is a senator now.
20 Matt Weissing, who became my partner. Steve Jaffe,
21 same. Mark Fistos, same.¶

22 These are high-quality people. Good
23 lawyers. The people that I associated with there,
24 good lawyers, good people, not doing anything bad.
25 They're just lawyers who are good lawyers. That's¶

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.¶

.1SC -7 ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JE SUPPORT OF HIS REVISED 0 APPENDIX IN OTION IN LIMINE¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey s et pstein") files this Appendix in support of his revised Omnibus Motion in Limine ein vlfll supplement this Appendix to attach the actual his revised Motion: documents and testimony cited h¶

Cos¶

I. DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION CITED OR REFERRED TO IN EPSTEIN'S COMPLAINT¶

A. Cit N verage: November 3-6, 2009¶

On Nov m 3, 2009, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel printed an article entitled "Scott Rothste s ent deals seemed too good to be true." Sally Kestin, Jon Burstein & Brittany Wallin Y tt Rothstein's investment deals seemed too good to be true, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 3, 2009.1 The Sun-Sentinel reported that "Rothstein attracted investors by promising huge returns and selling settlements he said he'd reached in sex discrimination and whistle-blower cases,¶

Available at http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2009-I I -03/news/sfl-rothstein-investment-plan-I I sbnov03_1_scott-rothstein-stuart-rosenfeldt-firm.¶

documents he gave prospective clients show." Id. The Sun-Sentinel quoted Alan Sakowitz, "a Miami lawyer and developer() [who] told the Sun Sentinel he had met with Rothstein as a potential investor three times, but quickly became suspicious. 'I was convinced it was all a Ponzi scheme and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty was hiding behind a legitimate law firm to peddle fake settlements,' Sakowitz said." Id. According to the Sun-Sentinel, a "spokesman for Ban n Income Fund, an investment group that collected $65 million and invested an undiscl amo t with Rothstein, said it contacted federal prosecutors in recent days with conc `suspicious activity?" Id. The Sun-Sentinel interviewed Rosenfeldt, who told th aper that "several of [his] co-workers may have done work for [Rothstein's] invest. siness without realizing its scope or nature." Id. The Sun-Sentinel reported that i ed "Rothstein's confidential offerings," which "describe[d] extremely high largely unregulated investment opportunities," one of which "offered invest nt return in three months, far more than the troubled and bond markets." akot told the Sun-Sentinel that "Rothstein boasted of having sophisticated eavesdrop ent and that former cops would sift through potential defendants' garbage," that "R hste claimed to have a 'huge volume of cases, an employer sleeping with the secreta eptionist,'" and that Rothstein claimed he "offered his clients a way to avoid wa g for t e [settlement] money by giving them a lesser amount, but in a lump sum up fro d. The Sun-Sentinel said that, according to Rothstein's offering documents, RRA out sexual discrimination and whistle-blower cases and used former cops to dig up incrimina ng evidence," "the firm urged the targets of the claims to pay a settlement without a public lawsuit," "'[t]hese types of cases are highly confidential and thus, quite lucrative, because the defendants place a high premium on keeping the details of the case confidential,' and investors¶

"would receive the full settlement amount in three to 12 months, with a guaranteed minimum 20 percent return[.]"¶

On November 6, 2009, the New Times Broward-Palm Beach printed an article entitled "Scott Rothstein: The Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton Ploy." Bob Norman, Scott Rothstein: The Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton Ploy, New Times Broward-Palm Beach, Nov. 6, 2009. dia2k ccording il to the New Times, "[o]ne way" that Rothstein enticed investors "was by tri [th ] into believing that his firm was representing numerous underaged girls who ha i alm Beach billionaire and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein." Id. T "Rothstein claimed that he had flight logs showing that Epstei including former President Bill Clinton, on his private Rothstein "told investors that Epstein, Clinton, a choice but to settle these cases and that it was e that investors "then ponied up million settlements to the victims, and was "no indication that the fo other celebrity names ba Imes reported that xtremely prominent people, e of the plaintiffs" and that ebrities involved basically had no treasure-trove." Id. The New Times said 'nye in the settlements, pay out a portion of those " but Rothstein was "fabricating the story" and there ident, who was at one time a real friend of Epstein's, and ut by Rothstein were involved in any way." Id.¶

The New es gtZted "Fort Lauderdale attorney Bill Scherer, who [wa]s representing multiple Rot investors.... 'He used the [Epstein case] as a showpiece, as bait,' said Scherer. 'Tha he raised all the money. He would use legitimate cases as bait for luring investors into fictional cases. All the cases he allegedly structured were fictional. I don't believe there was a real one in there.'" Id. The New Times mentioned "one legitimate case involving Epstein and¶

² Available at http://vAvw.browardpalmbeach.com/news/scott-rothstein-the-jeffrey-epstein-andbill-clinton-ploy-6471700.¶

an underaged girl" involving RRA; identified William Berger, not, as the attorney handling the matter; and reported that "[s]ources saki] they believe[dj Berger wasn't involved in Rothstein's scam." Id. A source described the Epstein fabrications as "one of Rothstein's more profitable creations," and told the New Tunes to "'[t]hink of the legitimate Epstein civil case as a car on the road.. . . (t)hen think of that car driving off the road onto heavy terrain and Aimut into four-wheel drive. That's what happened here, and Rothstein was at the wheel.'"¶

B. The Government's Civil Asset Forfeiture Complaint¶

On November 9, 2009, the United States Attorney's Office y r the Southern District of Florida filed a civil forfeiture action against certain property cl ik9) hstein. The complaint said Rothstein "and others" had been operating a Ponzi sche si e 5. (S.D. Fla. Case No. 0:09 cv-61780-WJZ DE-1 ¶ 13.) The Government alle j ,h i dthstein had told potential investors that his firm had negotiated settlements bet I vt ents and would-be defendants and that, under the terms of these settlements, urn' lients would receive substantial payments in exchange for not filing "civil chi' s al harassment and other labor-related cases." (Id. ¶ 14.) Rothstein offered inves rs an portunity to purchase these settlements at a discount. (Id.) The firm's clients woul cricrirve less money, but they would be paid immediately in a lump sum. (Id.) Over time, " e inves rs would receive the full value of the clients' settlements. (Id.) The problem, thcabyernment alleged, was that the settlements were not real. (Id.1 15.) Rothstein used es ors' money to pay older investors the money they were supposed to receive from the phony settlements they thought they had purchased. (Id.)¶

C. Referenced News Coverage: November 12, 2009¶

On November 12, 2009, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel printed an article entitled "FBI doubts Rothstein ran a Ponzi scheme alone." Sally Kestin and Peter Franccschina, FBI doubts Rothstein ran a Ponzi scheme alone, S. Fla. Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 12, 2009.3 The Sun-Sentinel reported that "[t]he FBI confirmed Thursday what many have speculated since the Scott Rothstein scandal broke: The flashy lawyer could not have defrauded investors of hundreds of millions without help. 'I do not believe that this was a one-man show,' said John Gil lies, head of the FBI in South Florida." Id.¶

D. The on, \ Investors' Complaint s >-¶

On November 20, 2009, William Scherer, the attorney quoted in th es article on November 6, 2009. sued Rothstein. David Boden, Debra la, ndre mett, TD Bank, N.A., Spinosa. Jennifer Kerstetter, Rosanne Caretsk Preve on behalf of investors Razorback Funding, LLC, D3 Capital Club, L nvestment, LLC, Linda Von Allmen (as trustee of the Von Allmen Dynasty T artners, LP, and Kretschmar. (I 7th Jud. Cir. Case No. 062009CA062943A S lbc ith -3.) The plaintiffs alleged Rothstein had "devised an elaborate plan to assign p Q * e ....,pl tiffs' confidential settlements with structured payments to investors at a lump s is ted rate. In reality, while some of the cases relied upon to induce investor fun e real, all of the confidential settlements were purely fabricated. Indeed. retu earlier investors were not made via structured payments, but instead were made with a principal obtained from later investors—a classic Ponzi scheme." (Id. ¶ 2.) The plaint i I s er alleged that Investors were told that the Principal Conspirators had an exten ouse private investigative team, including former F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents, whose singular t sk was to obtain compromising evidence against high-profile putative defendants. Rothstein's story was that the evidence and surveillance acquired. often supporting civil causes of¶

^&#x27; Available at http:// http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2009- I I -12/live/fl-rothstein-associates-200911 12_l_rothstein-rosenfeldt-adler-scott-rothstein-alan-sakowitz.¶

action ranging from sexual harassment to mass tort cover-ups to whistle-blower claims, was presented to the putative defendant who was then offered an opportunity to avoid litigation and the negative publicity associated therewith by agreeing to resolve the matter voluntarily by and through a confidential settlement with the putative plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 28.) The investors alleged that “Rothstein would show investors the purported settlement agreement in an attempt to substantiate the deal; however, because the settlements were pre-suit and confidential, the names of the putative plaintiffs and putative defendants were redacted.” (Id. ¶ 34.)¶

The investors further alleged “the purported settlements, albeit fraudulent, were based on actual cases being handled by RRA”—including one of Edwards’ cases against Epstein:¶

One of the settlements involved herein was based upon facts surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous billionaire financier. In fact, RRA did have inside information due to its representation of one of Epstein’s alleged victims in a civil case styled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, pending in the Southern District of Florida. Representatives of D3 were offered “the opportunity” to invest in a pre-suit $30,000,000.00, court settlement against Epstein arising from the same set of operative facts as the Jane Doe case, but involving a different underage female plaintiff. . . . To augment his concocted story Rothstein invited D3 to his office to view the thirteen banker’s boxes of actual case files in Jane Doe in order to demonstrate that the claims against Epstein were legitimate and that the evidence against Epstein was real. In particular, Rothstein claimed that his investigative team discovered that there were high-profile witnesses onboard Epstein’s private jet where some of the alleged sexual assaults took place and showed D3 copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries and international figures. Because of these potentially explosive facts, putative defendant Epstein had allegedly offered $200,000,000.00 for settlement of the claims held by various young women who were his victims. Adding fuel to the fire, the investigative team representative privately told a D3 representative that they found three additional claimants which Rothstein did not yet know about. . . .¶

Additionally, Rothstein used RRA’s representation in the Epstein case to pursue issues and evidence unrelated to the underlying litigation, but potentially beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme. For instance, RRA relentlessly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with other famous individuals knowing full well that no under age women were on board and no illicit activities took place. RRA also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebrities in a deliberate effort to bolster Rothstein’s lies.¶

(Id. ¶¶ 40-41.)¶

The investors also alleged that, "even after Rothstein's October 27, 2009 departure to Morocco, millions of dollars continued to flow out of RRA accounts from the Fort Lauderdale TD Bank accounts, indicative of an insider(s) maintaining operations of the Ponzi scheme." (Id. ¶ I 02c.) The investors further alleged that "[a] Ponzi scheme cannot be operated wit ut insider help. Plaintiffs believe that additional members of RRA, including its non-lave gators, were used by Rothstein to perpetuate, promote and facilitate the Ponzi s e details of these individuals['] or entities['] involvement¶ and participation is pr ently un nown but further allegations and counts will be added as discovery is conduc information concerning the complicity of these individuals or entities is confirmed."¶

E. Cited News Coverage: November¶

On November 24, 2009, The Mia rinted an article entitled "Feds: Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme paid salaries w fi ." Jay Weaver & Scott Hiaasen, Feds: Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme paid solar s I firm, The Miami Herald, Nov. 24, 2009. According to the article, "Rothstein's law irm g erated revenue of $8 million in one recent year, yet his 70 lawyer firm had a payroll 18million, prosecutors said. Rothstein, who owned half of Rothstein Rosenfeldt AdleS,used investors' money from his Ponzi scheme to make up the shortfall, they said.- Id. Q r 'cle further reported that "[t]he civil forfeiture is based on money-laundering al leg at othstein amassed his fortune by defrauding investors, prosecutors said. Investors bought shires in his fabricated confidential settlements from employment-discrimination and other civil cases during the past four years — investments that promised returns of up to 40 percent.- Id.¶

F. Amended Complaints Filed By The Government & Investors¶

On November 23, 2009, and November 27, 2009, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida filed amended civil forfeiture complaints against Rothstein's¶

property. (S.D. Ha. Case No. 0:09-cv-61780-WJZ DE-14, DE-19.) The Government again alleged that Rothstein "and others" had been running a Ponzi scheme. See id.¶

Scherer filed an amended complaint on behalf of the investor plaintiffs on November 25, 2009. (See 17th Jud. Cir. Case No. 062009CA062943AXXXCE DE-12.) The amended complaint quoted a November 23, 2009, interview of Rothstein by the Sun-Sentinel: "Rothstei . . stated that `karma has caught up with him, but it will catch up with others too . . . Yo n a n full of thieves, and at the end of the day, everyone will see. I'll leave it at t . ¶ 7.) The plaintiffs did not amend their allegations concerning the cases against r. ee generally 17th Jud. Cir. Case No. 062009CA062943AXXXCE DE-12.)¶

G. Rothstein Arrested; Criminal Inform tucc • h,.),¶

On December 1, 2009, the FBI arrested Rot igt \ft •ri r e United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida filed a c ' Si icinformation against him. The information identified RRA as a criminal enterprise D.. Case No. 0:09-cr-60331-J1C DE-1 ¶ 2.) The government alleged that, from 200 u it ember 2009, Rothstcin and others had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activi that i eluded mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to launder m ybr(Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) According to the Government, Rothstein and his unidentified co-co t piratt had operated a Ponzi scheme and obtained $1.2 billion from investors by fraud. (/ lit) The Government repeated its allegations that Rothstein had lied to investors,¶

The amended complaint misquotes the article slightly. "'You're hurting my daughter, you're hurting my son,' [Rothstein] said. (Rothstein has a biological daughter who is 16, and the son he's talking about is someone he took on as a sort of mentor, he said this summer.) `Haven't I already hurt them enough?' he asked, before delivering a final 'message' and hanging up. He called back this evening, responding to a text message. He said karma is going to get him, but it's going to get other people, too. 'You're in a town full of thieves, and at the end of the day, everyone will see. I'll leave it at that.' Brittany Wallman, Scott Rothstein: "You're in a town full of thieves", S. Ha. Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 23, 2009. Available at littp://www.sun-sentinel.com/s11-intblog-2009- I I -Scott rothstein_havent_i_hurt-story.html.¶

(fr. at I¶

Q. Complaint in this action alleges that L.M. made claims for damages out of proportion to her alleged damages. What does that mean?¶

had told them that his firm had settled certain sexual harassment and whistleblower cases on behalf of its clients and obtained sizeable payouts, and had offered investors the opportunity to purchase these phony settlements at a discount. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) The Government alleged that Rothstein and his co-conspirators had "created false and fictitious documents, including confidential settlement agreements," and "made false statements to current investors in order to convince them 14 re-invest in additional purported confidential settlement agreements." (Id ¶¶ 21, 23.)¶

II. EPSTEIN'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND AFFID CARDING PROBABLE CAUSE¶

A. Epstein's Deposition—March 17, 2010¶

Epstein testified as follows:¶

Q. Why are you suing L.M.?¶

A. L.M. is part of a conspiracy with Scott Ro -- creating fraudulent cases of a sexu already charged the firm of Rothstei a partner, with creating, fabricate respect to me, specifically, in of millions of dollars. 4B dley C) creating -- excuse me nature iniwich the U.S. Attorney has which is a partner, was s cases of a sexua nature, inc uding cases with e unsuspecting investors in South Florida out¶

Q. What role do you cont d L. ayed in that conspiracy to create fraudulent cases?¶

A. L.M.'s testimon fore s e met Mr. was dramatically -- sworn testimony to the FBI was dramati erent after she came in contact with Mr. JM, where her testim then hanged to sort of a hostile and had claims o -- c aims never made before, made to anyone before, and allegations that I've read in her Complaint that that Cy n matically different from the ones she had spoken to the FBI about, sir.¶

A. I believe that as part of the scheme to defraud investors in South Florida out of millions of dollars, claims of outrageous sums of money were made on behalf of alleged victims across the board. And the only way -- in fact, Scott Rothstein sits in jail. And what I've read in the paper, claims that I've settled cases for $200-million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of serious sum of money, which is outrageous.¶

(Tr. at 19:7-20:1.)¶

Q. Did Brad do anything that he shouldn't have done that forms the basis of your lawsuit against him?¶

A. Yes, many things.¶

Q. List them for me, please.¶

A. He has -- he has gone to the media out of, I believe, in an attempt to gin He has contacted the media. He has used the media for his own pu discovery -- he has engaged in discovery proceedings that bear no filed against me by any of his clients. His firm, which he's the of forging a Federal Judge's signature. allegations. has brought hip to any case as been accused¶

(Tr. at 23:4-19.)¶

Q. Besides having gone to the media in an attempt to and cn aged in what you contend to be irrelev personally, do that forms the bas' up, unquote, these allegations proceedings, what else did Mr. wsuit?¶

A. Mr. personally, engaged wi jail cell, potentially for the rest of hi -- excuse me -- what I've read name on it, with other attorne alleging multi-million dol millions of dollars. He the FBI and the U.S. A enterprise. rs, Scott Rothstein, who sits in a Federal hared information, what I've been told and papers, 13 boxes of information that had my . He counseled his clients to maintain a position in order for them to scam local investors out of any of his other partners already under investigation by ve been accused by the U.S. Attorney of running a criminal¶

A. can think of at the moment?¶

Q. What media did Mr. go to?¶

A. I am aware of at least the Daily News in New York City. I have been told by other people that there were other media, local media. I've been told that the — his investigator was sent to California to harass people representing his -- Brad l= investigator— representing fictitiously, fraudulently that he was a FBI agent to try to gather information for Mr. claims.¶

Anything else?¶

(Tr. at 25:6-26:15.)¶

Q. What does an investigator going to California have to do with Mr. allegedly going to the media in an attempt to, quote, gin up, unquote, these allegations?¶

A. ... It's part of Mr. scheme to involve people who have nothing to do with any of his cases in order to, in fact, go back to the media and gin up his stories and make false allegations of people that have sexually charged nature cases in order to attempt to fleece investors, local investors out of millions of dollars. His firm has been accused the U.S. Attorney of manipulating the media, by hiring investigators, by illegal wire s by illegal methods of eavesdropping in order to go to the media and generate cases"is¶

Q. When did Mr. go to the Daily News?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. How did he go to the Daily News?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. What did he say to the Daily News?¶

A. I believe Mr. knows that. I doty'LkiMy exactly what he said.¶

Q. What is the source of your informatics at h went to the Daily News at all, ever?¶

A. It's attorney/client.¶

Q. You said you were told ol$er people that he went to other media representatives?¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

Q. Who are other 15eople that told you that?¶

A. I do II It the moment.¶

Q. these other people who you don't remember tell you Mr. did with 4t gpect to other media representatives besides the Daily News?¶

0¶

A. Again, the question again?¶

Q. What did these other people tell you Mr. did with respect to going to other media?¶

A. Mr. went to the media to gin up his cases in order that the Rothstein firm could generate profits, falsely taking in investors, creating false stories to the local medias and making statements to local press regarding false claims made by his clients in order that Scott Rothstein, who currently sits in jail. could defraud, along with his other partners of his firm, local Florida investors, Mr. Scarola, out of millions of dollars.¶

Q. When did these other people whose identity you can't remember tell you these things that Brad did.¶

A. Sometime in the past year.¶

Q. How many other people were there who told you these things about Mr. Ed¶

A. I don't recall with specificity.¶

A. I would say, probably five to ten.¶

Q. Well, do you recall in any degree how many there were? O¶

Q. Where were you when these conversations took place t . can't// -- the identity of those participants you can't remember?¶

Mr. Pike: So we're clear, within the last year -- correct -. ise?¶

Mr. Scarola: Well, that's what your client said. \ I eve a word he says, but that's what he said.¶

A. Again, sir?¶

Q. Yes, sir. Where did t se con *i l rsations with these five to ten people take place whose identity you can't reme r?¶

A. On the te/ephone.¶

Q. Why, maimed the phone calls? A¶

A. ese questions, I have no -- I don't have any recollection.¶

Q. Did the people who were on the phone identify themselves or were these anonymous callers?¶

A. Sitting here today, Mr. Scarola, I don't recall with specificity.¶

Q. What specifically did Mr. allegedly communicate to the Daily News to quote, gin up these allegations, unquote?¶

A. The newspapers have quoted Mr. — not quoted Mr. — newspapers have made allegations referred to as Mr. statements.¶

Q-Would you read the question back, please, Sandy?¶

A. He alleged that third parties had already been involved in some allegations to do with sexual misconduct. A Cots¶

Q. Which third parties?¶

A. I don't recall sitting here today.¶

Q. Involved how?¶

A. If I recall with specificity, if I had the articles in f n Maybe next time. I would be able to recall.¶

Q. What does "gin up these allegations" mean?S \¶

• • •¶

A. It means craft allegations of mu data of $50-million, settl partners to fleece based on cases that didn' Emil \r dollar cases; in fact, alleging in L.M.'s case order for Scott Rothstein and the rest of Mr. ng investors out of millions and millions of dollars eged cases that I had settled.¶

(Tr. at 28:14-33:21.)¶

Q. you. Was your referen note, gin up these allegations, unquote, a reference to allegations made agai you.¶

A. AS p e vast conspiracy of the Rothstein firm and Mr. participation in it, it has bQen alleged that many cases were fraudulently brought -- alleged that have been brought; ginned up, meaning, crafted, multi-million dollar numbers put on cases in order to fleece investors, where his partner, Scott Rothstein, currently sits in jail for just those purposes, Mr. Scarola.¶

Q. My question to you is: Did the reference to, quote, gin up these allegations refer to allegations against you?¶

A. Reported in the newspaper the answer is, yes. And others, but specifically me, yes, by the newspaper reports.¶

(Tr. at 34:3-22.)¶

• Q. What specific discovery proceedings did Mr. engage in which you contend form the basis for your lawsuit?
• A. The discovery proceedings of bringing my attorneys to various people that had nothing to do with any of his clients or these lawsuits.
• Q. Which various people? Who?
• A. For example, he tried to depose Bill Clinton, strictly as a means of g he and his firm could fraudulently steal, craft money from unsus Florida out of millions of dollars. city so that tors in South

('Tr. at 36:10-23.)¶

• Q. You said something about Mr. sharing 13 x formation with somebody -
• A. Yes.
• Q. -- as forming part of the basis for you
• A. Correct. ainst Mr. correct?
• Q. All right. With whom did s share these 13 boxes of information?
• A. It has been reported in a Sc r Complaint that he shared those boxes with the partners of his firm that was th o ally accused by the U.S. Attorney, sir, of being a criminal enterprise.
• Q.
• A.
• Q. Do yone ?Sher my question? me who he shared it with?
• A. The partners of his firm, sir.
• Q. Okay. So part of the basis of your lawsuit is that Mr. own law firm to see 13 boxes of information; is that correct? allowed members of his
• A. No, that's not co claim is that the 13 boxes of information that were shown to investors by Mr. partners, 13 boxes that we've been told by the press contain multiple cases, fraudulently -- and if you like the word -- fabricated in order to fleece

investors out of money. The 13 boxes were shared with investors, Mr. Mr. partners and some of those partners currently under indi[ct]ment, t e others already sitting in jail.¶

(Tr. at 37:18-38:22.)¶

Q. Which newspaper said which case was fabricated?¶

A. Bob Norman's blog said most of the cases were fabricated, to my best recoil ion. The Scherer complaint alleged many fabricated cases, sir.¶

(Tr. at 39:7-12.)¶

Q. Among the allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. whit basis of this lawsuit is something having to do with sen mg a Would you tell me, please, more specifically what it is that to sendin an investigator to California which you cont Mr. ?] S end i form the or to California. ards did with regard a legal claim against¶

A. Reported widely in the newspapers is the by the Rothstein firm while Mr. Edwa investigator, Mr. Fisten, who's menti agent, falsely represented himself I activities, wire taps, and methods asically been bringing these cases. The Complaint, represented himself as an FBI gent.¶

Do you have any personal in California? nything that Mr. Fisten did while Mr. Fisten was¶

A. I'm sorry. Basest/74r attorney/client privilege, I can't answer.¶

(Tr. at 48:9-49:1¶

Q. Is it Ntition that Mr. was involved in an illegal wire tap?¶

A. I ely reported in the newspaper --¶

Q. not asking [if] it was reported --¶

A. Excuse me.¶

Q. -- in the newspaper.¶

A. Excuse me.¶

Q. I want to know whether your contention is that Mr. wire tap. was involved in an illegal¶

• Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of Mr. ever having engaged in any illegal wire tap?

• A. I have no personal knowledge; however, what I read in the newspapers d widely reported is that his firm, and I believe Mr. Sakowitz went to the FBI after Ewa Id that the firm was engaged in illegal wire taps and his partners were engaged i tal wire taps. The FBI, the U.S. Attorney has accused his firm of RICO, being the 'mina) fraud enterprise in South Florida's history and engaged in illegal w* ut the answer specifically to your question about personal knowledge, sir, no

• A. It's been widely reported in the newspapers in partners were involved in illegal wire to newspapers quoted as sophisticated meth investor, and Mr. Scherer, who's filed a knowledge, myself, sir, no. a that Mr. firm, his fact gathering, using what the kowitz, who was approached as an, alleges similar activities. But personal

• A. It's been widely reported in the newspaper that his firm and his partners were involved in illegal wire taps, eavesdropping, hired former FBI and law enforcement officials in order to fabricate cases of a sexually charged nature against me and others.

Do you have any personal knowledge of Mr. iyy tav been involved in any illegal or improper eavesdropping?¶

• Q. Do you have any personal It ge hat obstructions of justice? was ever involved in

• A. It's attorney/client privi C r,i'm afraid.

• A. Qeof the newspapers, which have accused his firm of a monstrous fraud, purported e largest fraud in South Florida's history, accused by the U.S. Attorney, where his paatner sits in jail -- excuse me -- reported in the newspapers of boxes of material on Jeffrey Epstein, separate and apart from the allegations of fraud by his partners, I cannot answer that question because of attorney/client privilege.

• Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that ever forged Federal Court Orders and/or Opinions?

• A. It's attorney/client privilege.

Do you have any nal knowledge that actionabl uds? was ever involved in any¶

Q. Y you ever see, hear, smell, taste, or touch anything that communicated to you and not through the report of some third person or newspaper that w personally involved in compromising the core values of both State an era justice systems in South Florida.¶

Q. Do you have any personal knowledge were unsupportable? ever filed legal papers that¶

Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that was ever involved in the marketing of non-existent Epstein settlements?¶

A. I'm sorry. I would like to answer that question, but on attorney/client privilege I cannot today.¶

Q. It is alleged in your Complaint that you were subject to, quote, abusive investigat y tactics. Other than those matters previously referred to in earlier questions, is it yo r ntention that had any personal involvement in any other, ote, usive investigatory tactics?¶

A. It's been widely reported in the newspapers that Mr. -- wildly abusive practices throughout the State of Flori investors out of millions of dollars. The U.S. Att engaged in a corrupt criminal enterprise. Mr. S amounts of fraud and discovery abuse. I have attorney/client privileged information, regard' engaged in widely o fleece unsuspecting omplaint alleges his firm mplaint alleges monstrous knowledge, separate from the ards.¶

A. I'm afraid it's attorney/clie¶

Q. Do you have any perso that, quote, compromi Florida? edge that Mr. was ever involved in any conduct core values of both State and Federal justice systems in South¶

A. Can t -- can you define for me what you mean by "personal knowledge," sir?¶

Mr. Pike: Form. Same instruction with regard to attorney/client.¶

A. Yes. Are you suggesting that anyone who told me specifically or things that I might have read that specifically relate to him, is not what you've been asking me for?¶

Q. Yes, sir, that's exactly right.¶

A. You told me if I hear something, that's not personal knowledge.¶

Q. Not if you hear it from somebody else.¶

A. Who else would I hear it from, besides somebody else, sir?¶

Q. Well, if you heard it directly yourself.¶

A. From who?¶

Q. Maybe Mr.¶

A. Uh-huh. Is that the only person, sir?¶

Q. That's the only person, that's correct. CSSA¶

A. Well, if it's the only person, separate from attorney/client rivi l)cannot answer that.¶

(Tr. at 49:13-55:22.)¶

Q. Your Complaint makes reference to a purpose i st,fs lawsuit --¶

A. Yes.¶

Q. -- to vindicate the hardworking and est fa yers and their clients who were adversely affected by the misconduct that is of this Complaint.¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

Q. Who are those hardwo ing all4honest lawyers on whose behalf you are bringing this Complaint?¶

A. Yes. The 41S. Att ey, sir, has accused the Rothstein firm of misusing the entire legal system le cl of abuse never seen before in the United States history, of forging docu en an affront to any decent lawyer, signing Judge's Orders, sending false enez, Its o other lawyers. The people who have been -- excuse me -- the Complaint by . Attorney, in fact, describes the behavior of the law firm, as well as Mr. -- my mplaint says, Mr. being a part of that.¶

(Tr. at 57:2-57:25.)¶

Q. I want to know who the, quote, "hardworking and honest lawyers" are that are referred to in that section of your Complaint.¶

A. My attorneys, at least. arc honest.¶

Q. Which ones?¶

A. All of them.¶

Q. And you say that you want to vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients?¶

A. That's correct.¶

Q. Which clients?¶

A. Me, some of the other clients, in fact, abused by the Rothstein firm. I don't the full extent. Hopefully when we get to trial, we're oin to find out the exte ple, the lawyers, the clients that were abused by Mr. and the Rothst e have asked for Scott Rothstein's deposition. We hopefully will get it. will give us some insight on how other lawyers have, in fact, been handletra y a uses they've undergone, including forging a Federal Judge's signature, sir.¶

(Tr. at 59:11-25.)¶

Q. And did you mean to say what this sentence says, endeavored to vindicate the hardworking and h adversely affected by the misconduct that is t tein racketeering enterprise is and their clients, who were f this Complaint?"¶

Mr. Pike: Okay. I'm going to move to strike. is cterizes the language of the document. The document reads as follows, for s the record: "The Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeavored to compromi c re values of both State and Federal justice systems in South Florida and t. the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients who were adverse! y the misconduct that is the subject of this Complaint."¶

Q. Is that what you meant¶

A. What I meant to 't is - seems to me somewhat unclear -- is that the Rothstein firm, along with Mr. s, is part of a criminal enterprise, the largest -- excuse me — the largest cr rise in South Florida's history, forging Judges' signatures, engaging in ille•a w taps, illegal behaviors. And part of this lawsuit should vindicate, which mea' ie e should set right. And if it's not clear, the Rothstein firm compromised the of our legal justice system. It abused every — many of the precepts, the most on ues of the American justice system. And, in fact, I believe this lawsuit, part of the for filing this lawsuit, it will disclose the various techniques of attorney/client p ' ilege, abuse of techni ue abuse of discovery, illegal wire taps, forging signatures engaged in by both Mr. and his firm.¶

Q. So it is your contention that Mr. was part of a criminal enterprise?¶

A. Yes, it is.¶

Q. Knowingly part of a criminal enterprise?¶

A. Attorney/client privilege.¶

(Tr. at 62:13-64:3.)¶

Q. What knowledge do you have of Brad ever having personally engaged in mail fraud?¶

A. It's been widely reported in the press.¶

Q. I'mgoing to withdraw my question. What person knowledge do yo e of Bradley ever having been engaged in any mail fraud?¶

A. Will you describe what you mean by "personal knowledge," sip¶

Q. I mean direct observation through your senses on your pa¶

A. So are you asking me whether or not I've witnes ending something directly, putting physically in the mail, sir?¶

Q. I'm asking whether you have ever person Sy sed ever having engaged in mail fraud.¶

A. I'm not sure how that's possible iddyl6 witness a mail fraud, so would you inform me how it's done?¶

Q. So the answer to my questi i t y aiel on't know; is that correct?¶

A. My answer to your qu ... I've asked for a clarification.¶

Q. Have you ever personally witnessed engaging in mail fraud?¶

A. No, s'¶

Q. ver personally witnessed Edward -- engaged in wire fraud?¶

A. w would one -- I'm not sure how anyone would personal -- have personal knowledge, wi ess someone engaging in wire fraud, unless they were simply sitting over their computer looking at their bank accounts. So, unfortunately, I would have to say, no, sir.¶

Q. Have you ever personally witnessed engaged in money laundering?¶

A. Again, sir, the U.S. Attorney's Complaint of the Rothstein firm alleges money laundering, wire fraud, mail fraud, RICO claims of Mr. partners and his firm, calling the firm the largest criminal enterprise in South Florida's history, accused of fabricating malicious cases, sir, of a sexually charged nature in order to fleece unsuspecting South Floridians out of millions of dollars.¶

Q. And I'm trying to find out, Mr. Epstein, whether you have any evidence whatsoever that Mr. ever personally participated in any of that wrongdoing?¶

A. I'm afraid it will be attorney/client privilege, sir.¶

Q. Do you have any evidence — knowledge of any evidence whatsoever It 1 r. dwards ever participated in any effort to market any kind of investment in milt¶

A. I would have to claim attorney/client privilege on that, sir.¶

Q. Do you have knowledge of any evidence whatsoever dwards was ever a participant in devising a plan through which were sol ed confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement?¶

A. The newspapers and blogs have widely typo firm crafted — would you repeat the question for me, again, sir?¶

Q. Yes sir. I want to know whether personally ever participate confidential assignments of a st y knowledge of evidence that vis g a plan through which were sold purixte out settlement?¶

A. I'd like to answer that y saying that the newspapers have reported that his firm was engaged in fraudu ctured settlements in order to fleece unsuspecting Florida investors. With t to my personal knowledge, I'm unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to e point being able to disclose it, today I'm going to have to assert the attom client ivilege.¶

Q. You t alleges that Rothstein and others in RRA were using RRA to market i .. Who are the others referred to in the Complaint?¶

A. a ny understanding of the U.S. Attorney's Complaint, from Mr. Scherer's Complaint, it is the partners and people who held themselves out to be partners of the Roth -- Scott Rothstein, including Mr. Berger, Mr. Adler, Mr. and other people associated with the firm like Mr. Fisten, Diane M, if that's how you pronounce her name, Adler, and many of the other partners of his firm currently under investigation by either the Florida Bar or the U.S. Attorney or FBI or all of the above, sir.¶

Which -- which source of information referenced in that answer specifically made reference to Mr.¶

A. I don't know.¶

(Tr. at 74:4—8.)¶

Q. Do you have any information indi anyone associated with the Rot statements were made about t Epstein and the value there AS /SCIC)C that dley ever had any knowledge of holding meetings during which, quote, "false of cases/clients that existed or RRA had against¶

A. I don't recall, sir.¶

Q. But you do have a recollection that one or more of them did: is that correct?¶

A. I don't recall, sir.¶

(Tr. at 64:20-69:6.)¶

Q. Did anyone ever sift through your garbage looking for damaging evidence?¶

A. It's been widely reported in the newspapers, sir, that the Rothstein firm en sifting through many people's garbage in order -- in an attempt to blackmail t¶

(Tr. at 74:5-10.)¶

Q. Yes. I'd like to know what the answer to that question is. anyone ever sift through your garbage looking for damaging evidence?¶

A. My best recoil on is the .S. Attorney has accused the Rothstein firm of just those types of meetings whe rtners got together, schemed to defraud local investors of millions of dollars fabr flog cases of a sexually charged nature. And whether Mr. persona rticipated, I'm going to at least today, sir, have to assert the attorney c lent privi :47) bu k forward to one day disclosing it.¶

(Tr. at 7 5.)¶

Q. graph 23 of your Complaint says that: "RRA, Rothstein and a claiming the need for anonymity with regard to existing or fabricated clientnhr, were able to effectively use initials," et cetera. Do you have any knowledge that fabricated a client to bring a claim against you?¶

• • •¶

A. I believe Mr. Scherer's Complaint --¶

Q. I'm not asking about Mr. Scherer's Complaint. I'm not asking about any evidence that you have.¶

• • •¶

A. The pleadings of Mr. Scherer and his claim against the Rothstein firm for a massive fraud, as well as Mr. Sakowitz's claims to — at least in the -- described in the public press, because he went to the FBI for fabricating cases that included initials. With respect to anything specific with Mr. I'm going to have to claim the attorney/client privilege today, sir.¶

Q. S ave any -- do you have knowledge of the existence of any evi that knew that Rothstein was utilizing RRA as a front for a Po e ?¶

A. That's attorney/client privilege.¶

Q. Do you have any knowledge of any evidence that w have known that Rothstein was utilizing RRA as fp a Ponzi scheme? should¶

A. And today I'm going to have to asse y/client privilege. ... Separate from the communication I've had with my a s, l n't answer that question.¶

(Tr. at 77:19—80:6.)¶

Q. Do you have any evide the sale of an interest i personal injury lawsuits? sold, allowed to be sold and/or assisted with¶

A. The newsp rs ha a widely reported that the Rothstein firm engaged in illegal structured settleme cases of a sexual nature, including specifically, me. We have subpoenaed the d i r en m Mr. and his firm and we have not been able to get them as of ye .nfident that once we do, I will be able to answer your questions with more¶

Q. ou sit here today, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support an assertion that M, individually and personally, sold, allowed to be sold and/or assisted with the sale of an interest in non-settled personal injury lawsuits?¶

A. You said, allowed to be sold. I'm going to assert attorney/client privilege to the answer, I'm afraid, but I'd like to answer that question.¶

Q. Do you have knowledge of any evidence indicating that ever reached agreements to share attorney's fees with non-lawyers?¶

A. In fact, Mr. Scarola, we have subpoenaed Mr. documents and documents from his firm that I believe will, in fact, give me more specificity with the answers to that question. I'm looking forward to getting the -- that specific evidence. With respect to what we currently know, sitting here today, I'm unfortunately going to have laim my attorney/client privilege.¶

Q. Do you today have any evidence to support an assertion that s ever used investor money to pay L.M., E.W., and/or Jane Doe up-front money they would refuse to settle civil actions?¶

A. I'm going to have to assert the attorney/client privi afraid, though I'd like to answer that question as well, sir.¶

Q. Do you have any evidence to support the iollythat conducted searches, wire taps or intercepted conve lation of State or Federal laws and Bar rules?¶

A. Your question, once again asked di eavesdropping? Did he walk to he, personally, stand outsid behavior in an attempt t attorney has filed a Co that his firm did. The subpoenaed used my na not received any. as Mr. personally involved in the ouse and sort of ut a bug in their house? Did estion is, did Mr. firm engage in this I investors out of millions of dollars? The U.S. g that they did. The Complaints filed by Scherer saying omplaint says my name and the boxes of files that we've sir. We have requested information, but up until today have e you a more specific answer, I'm afraid I cannot.¶

Q. Do you know edge of any evidence that ever conducted searches, wirecs pted conversations in violation of State or Federal laws and Bar rules?¶

A. a newspapers and the U.S. Attorney's Complaint widely reported that Mr. fi and people hired by his firm, investigators hired by his firm fraudulently representing themselves as FBI agents engaged in just those activities, sir.¶

Q. Do you have any knowledge of any evidence that was ever aware of any such activities.¶

A. I'm going to have to -- ... assert the attorney/client privilege to that, sir.¶

Q. Do you have any knowledge that ever participated in or was aware of actions that utilized the judicial process, including, but not limited to, unreasonable and unnecessary discovery for the sole purpose of furthering a Ponzi scheme?¶

• • •¶

A. The pleadings of Mr. Scherer with respect to the largest Ponzi scheme in South Florida's history engaged in by Mr. film and Scott Rothstein, who currently sits in jail, probably for the rest of his life for engaging in, not only illegal wi taps and eavesdropping, but an abuse of the entire legal system, I believe s or itself. Unfortunately, with respect to Mr. today, I'm going to hcto rt the attorney/client, work privilege, sir.¶

Q. ,it air contention that Mr. Scherer's Complaint even cotta name¶

A. 1 don't recall, sir.¶

(Tr. at 83:11-88:18.)¶

Q. What are the dame es du.. .claim to haves consequence of any wrongdoing on the part of¶

A. The cost of ridiculous litigation, of attorneys prepare responses to wildly irrelevant discovery in various locat inimum, sir.¶

Q. Which lawyers?¶

A. Burman Critton, Jack G C o)leoe nd a bunch of the others, sir.¶

Q. Which ones? the me me, please.¶

A. Specifically -- I h thlt" many lawyers defending me here against Mr. I can't sit here -- at t om t I can't recall it with specificity.¶

Q. You ber any of your lawyers' names?¶

A.¶

Q. B 'des Mr. -- besides the Burman Critton firm and Mr. Goldberger?¶

A. Are you asking me for the firm, sir, or are you asking me for the names?¶

Q. I want as much information as you can give me about this element of damage which you claim; and, that is, the cost of legal services that you claim to be damages in this case.¶

A. Okay.... Mr. Roy Black.¶

Q. Okay. Who else?¶

• A. Mr. Marty Weinberger. Mr. Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Jay Lefkowitz. The firm of Burman Critton Luttier. That's it for the moment.

• Q. How much have you paid the law firm of Burman Critton and Luttier which you claim is damages?

• A. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, sir.

• Q. How much?

• A. I don't have that figure offhand.

• Q. Can you give us any better figure than hundreds of thousands of dol

• A. No, not sitting here today.

• Q. Are you paying them on an hourly basis? C.)

• A. Yes, sir.

• Q. What is the hourly rate at which you are compe tt c nbers of the law firm?

• A. They're ordinary rates.

• Q. What are they? "(SiNr s

• A. I don't know.

• Q. How much have you paid ol erger?

• A. I'm not aware total am

• Q. What is the hourl at which you're paying Mr. Goldberger?

hourly I !is norms ,hourly¶

• Q.

• Q. FlotinA is at?

• A. I do ow. )

• Q. H v much have you paid Mr. Black which you claim as damages in this case?

• A. Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

• Q. Are you paying him on an hourly basis?

• A. I believe so.

• Q. What is the hourly rate?

A. I'm not -- I do not know, sir.¶

Q. How much have you paid Marty Weinberger?¶

A. I don't know the exact amount, sir.¶

Q. What's your best estimate?¶

A. More than a hundred thousand dollars.¶

Q. Are you paying him on an hourly basis?¶

A. I believe so.¶

Q. What's the hourly rate?¶

A. I don't know, sir.¶

Q. How much have you paid Alan Dershowitz?¶

A. Hundreds of thousands of dollars.¶

Q. Are you paying him on an hourly basis?¶

Q. At what hourly rate?¶

A. I believe so.¶

A. I don't know, sir.¶

Q. How much are you pa -- how much have you paid Jay Lefkowitz?¶

A. I'm not sure, sir.¶

Q. Do you e any i a at all?¶

A. Mo a h ndred thousand dollars.¶

Q. A aying him on an hourly basis?¶

A. , sir.¶

Q. What's the hourly rate?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. What is the form of payment to your lawyers? How do you transfer money to them?¶

A. I don't know, sir.¶

CO'S-A¶

Q. Pardon mc?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. Does someone do that on your behalf?¶

A. I would guess so.¶

Q. Who?¶

A. I don't know.¶

° ISA¶

Q. Are there any other elements of damage, apart from the money lawyers?¶

A. The stress and emotional damage of itnpe <y ICendships and business relationships ght by a firm that whose partner sits in a Federal prison, who engaged in discQ6ery to ss my friends and social contacts with no consideration or relevance to this e wfilitsoever, in an attempt to simply fleece -- partly fleece investors in South Flori illions of dollars, sir. with no relevance whatsoever to these cas¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

Q. What?¶

Q. What is the value of tho¶

A. I'm not sure yet,¶

Q. Do you any id a at all?¶

A. Not e today.¶

Q. ess than $ I 0?¶

A. I would guess it's more than $I0, sir.¶

Q. More or less than a hundred?¶

A. I would guess it's quite an amount of money.¶

Q. Is it more or less than a hundred?¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

Q. More or less than a thousand.¶

A. I would say it's more than 150,000.¶

Q. More or less than a million?¶

A. I don't know, sir.¶

Q. So somewhere between 150,000 and a million?¶

A. No, sir. It's not -- . .. No, sir. That's not what I said. I said, I did S .¶

Q. Maybe more than a million?¶

A. Maybe.¶

AS CA) )¶

Q. More or less than a billion?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q, Maybe more than a billion?¶

</S A. Maybe more.¶

Q. How are you going to go g out what the value of that loss is?¶

A. I will respectful ine to answer that.¶

Q. On what s?¶

A. Atto ie privilege.¶

Mr. Pike: k product.¶

Q. A other elements of damage?¶

A. Not -- there might be, but sitting here today, I can't think of them.¶

Q. Do you have written contracts with any of your lawyers?¶

A. I don't know.¶

Q. Who does?¶

A. I don't know.¶

(Tr. at 116:8-123:18.)¶

B. Epstein's Deposition—January 25, 2012¶

Q. Yes, sir. Is it your contention that action on behalf of LM? abusively prosecuted the f ;court eral¶

A. Yes, sir.¶

Q. How?¶

A. dollars. His partner Scott Rothstein and his partner Rothstein has now in deposition admitted that th investors that there was real action, in Mr. Rot The investors had not been able to find a Rothstein that there was no filed compla filed the federal complaint for 234. O filed a 234-count federal complaint in conju tion ith his partner Scott Rothstein to enable his partners at RRA to defraud sou on vestors of millions of ler have -- excuse me, Mr. o file a complaint to show rds, going on in federal court. aint and had complained to Mr. excuse me, before Mr.¶

Q. Were you ever served with that co¶

A. Not to the best of my recoilo¶

Q. So one contention is th of LM with which you ere eb er served, correct? s abusively prosecuted a federal court action on behalf¶

A. I had — I was noted that the case was, in fact, filed.¶

Q. But you it neve ha eryed with the case, correct?¶

A. I wa • i t the case was filed.¶

Q. ere never served with the case, correct?¶

A. to the best of my recollection.¶

Q. Okay. What damage did you incur as a consequence of the filing of a complaint with which you were never served?¶

A. I incurred many legal -- much legal fees, many legal fees, in fact, to try to figure out why -- what was going on and, in fact, getting prepared to defend the case though I had not yet been served.¶

Epstein testified as follows:¶

Q. Were the allegations in the federal complaint on behalf of LM any different than the allegations in the state court case on behalf of LM?¶

A. I don't recall.¶

(Tr. at 19:16-21:9.)¶

C. Epstein's Affidavit—June 30,2017¶

Epstein set forth the following "good faith basis" for commencing his actio g inst¶

Rothstein and¶

• 5. I filed the Action against Rothstein and because, bas below and in the Summary Judgment Motion, I believed at th Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown pa Rosenfeld[, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious miscond • illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm the very civil cases litigated against me by Edwa potential investors in the Ponzi Scheme.
• 6. In early November 2009, stories in the p about the implosion of RRA, the Ponzi the Ponzi Scheme of certain civil mg The cases Summary Judgment Motion ( out of millions of dollars an
• 7. In November 2009, I al at RRA, the Florida Ba employed by
• 8. At or abou Conrad LLC, the \I ews, and on the Internet were legion rpetrated at that firm, and the misuse in ing litigated against me by RRA partner, ng against me, which are described in the Cases"), were being used to defraud investors RRA Ponzi Scheme. cts described ing my original theirs at Rothstein, vol0lfig a widely publicized zi Scheme") that featured were being used to defraud aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme mmenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys e lime in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding tt W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors.
• 9. viewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback Complaint detailed use of the Epstein Cases (i.e.. the cases being litigated against me by N) to de raud investors in the Ponzi Scheme; including, but not limited to, improper discovery practices and other methods to bolster the cases.
• 10. Prior to my filing the initial Complaint in the Action, I also became aware that the Federal government filed an Information against Scott Rothstein, which included allegations of RRA as an "Enterprise" in which Rothstein and his yet unidentified co-conspirators engaged in a racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, mail and wire fraud conspiracy, and wire fraud, and specifically alleged that (a) potential investors were defrauded by Rothstein and other co-conspirators who falsely advised that confidential

settlement agreements were available for purchase, when the settlement agreements offered were fabricated; (b) the fabricated settlements agreements were allegedly available in amounts ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars and could be purchased at a discount and repaid to the investors at face value over time; (c) Rothstein and other co-conspirators utilized the offices of RRA and the offices of other co-conspirators to convince potential investors of the legitimacy of the and success of the law firm, which enhanced the credibility of the purported investment opportunity in these fictitious settlements; (d) Rothstein and other co-conspirators utilized funds obtained through the Ponzi Scheme to supplement and support the operation and activities of RRA, to expand RRA by the hiring of additional attorneys and support staff, to fund salaries and bonuses, and to acquire larger and more elaborate office space and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise.¶

1. 11. Prior to filing the initial Complaint in the Action, consistent with the allegations made by the press, in the Razorback Complaint, and in the Rothstein Information, it was clear that the activity in the Epstein Cases being litigated by Edwards intensified substantially during the short six (6) months during which [REDACTED] was a partner at RRA from April 2009 through the end of October 2009. Furthermore, during that six (6)-month period, questionable discovery like that detailed in the Razorback Complaint had taken place in the Epstein Cases being litigated against me by Edwards, including [REDACTED] noticing the depositions of famous dignitaries and celebrities such as Bill Clinton and David Copperfield. However, the plaintiffs in the Epstein Cases had made no allegations of improper conduct against them implicating any celebrities or dignitaries.
2. 12. Equally consistent with the allegations in the press and in the Razorback Complaint that the Epstein Cases were being deliberately misused for purposes unrelated to the litigation in order to lure investors into the Ponzi Scheme is the fact that on July 24, 2009, [REDACTED] filed a two hundred thirty-four (234) page, one fifty-six (156) count federal complaint against me on behalf of a plaintiff, LM, for whom [REDACTED] was already prosecuting a case against me in state court involving the same matters alleged in the federal complaint. The complaint was filed in federal court, but was never served on me or prosecuted, leading me to conclude that the only reason it was filed was to enhance the case files shown at the offices of RRA to potential investors in the Ponzi Scheme.
3. 13. Also while a partner at RRA, [REDACTED] filed a motion in Federal court in which he requested that the court order me to post a fifteen million dollar bond in the Jane Doe case. This case, according to the Razorback Complaint, was being touted at that same time to investors in the Ponzi Scheme. In connection with that motion, [REDACTED] filed papers discussing my net worth and filed supplemental papers purporting to list in great detail my vehicles, planes and other items of substantial value, all at a time when, according to the accounts in the press, the Information and the Razorback Complaint, the Ponzi Scheme was unraveling and the need for new investors in the Ponzi Scheme was becoming urgent. The court rejected the Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence."

(15th Jud. Cir. Case No. 50-2009-CA-040800-XXXX-MB DE-931 ¶¶ 5-13.)¶

III. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY¶

A. MI Deposition—March 23,2010¶

testified as follows:¶

Q: Did he ever call you to communicate with you, call you either by phone, video conference, in any fashion to discuss any aspect of the cases that you had against Jeffrey Epstein?¶

• • •¶

A: He has communicated about various, about legal issues related to t well as commented about the case to me on very few occasions but I wo than three times.¶

(Tr. at 112:7-16.)¶

Q: All right. Do you remember a third occasion that he s. u regarding Epstein related occasion, cases?¶

A: Anything else that he ever spoke with me abo pstein related issues is attorneyclient and work-product privileged info m not going to divulge.¶

Q: All right. And when you got in jct S, offi ." Mr. Rothstein was there?¶

A: Yes.¶

Q: Mr. Adler?¶

A: Yes.¶

Q: There wasstmeon4on the telephone who you don't recall?¶

A: Y¶

Q: we ds there anyone else present?¶

A: that I remember.¶

Q: Okay. Was, were there any investigators, was Mr. Jenne or Mr. Fisten present?¶

A: No.¶

Q: So, it was, you, Rothstein, Adler, and someone on the phone; that's it?¶

A: From what I remember.¶

(Tr. at 116:21-117:3.)¶

Q: How long did the meeting last?¶

A: I don't know how long the meeting lasted.¶

O: Five minutes or was it a substantially long meeting?¶

A: Do you want how long I was in the meeting, I can give you an answer. Flow long the meeting lasted, I have no idea.¶

Q: How long did the meeting last while you were present?¶

A: Less than five minutes. ^s¶

Q: Was the value of any of the three cases discussed at all?¶

A: No. CO¶

Q: Did Mr. Rothstein, did Mr. Rothstein appear to be knop led able about your cases?¶

A: No.¶

Q: Mr. Adler. was Mr. Adler someone that yo regular basis ... not content. Was Mr. A cases with prior to that meeting? d the cases with on a somewhat eo e that you had discussed these Epstein¶

A: Yes.¶

Q: What lawyers, other thin ;b -ou, were involved in the Epstein cases during the time you were associated with R ?¶

A: What do you mea if ere involved?' I guess all.¶

Q: What, w cases awyersractually worked on the file? I know Mr. Berger worked on the Epstein¶

March 23, 2010, Tr. at 1 )¶

A: ited capacity, correct.¶

Q: Mr. Adler I know attended Mr. Epstein's deposition, correct?¶

A: Correct.¶

March 23, 2010, Tr. at 230:15-231:1.)¶

Deposition—October 10, 2013¶

testified as follows:¶

Q: Okay. At the meetings that you -- at the meetings that occurred with these various lawyers, Berger, Adler, =, Rob Buschel were present and Epstein was discussed, was the discovery that -- discovery and/or investigation regarding Mr. Epstein ever discussed?¶

A: I -- I would assume so.¶

Q: Well, I --¶

A: In meetings, that we were talking about, was Epstein discussed?¶

Q: Yeah, l -- I -- I assume, based upon the what we saw in the e-mails tod actly the purpose of the meeting, correct?¶

A: Exactly, that was the purpose of the meeting.¶

C O¶

C. =. Deposition—November 10, 2017¶

testified as follows:¶

So there is some truth that Rothstein is wea Aik %4Ap i on documents, the flight log that was obtained by you as the lead trial la r e nding lawsuits?¶

A: There is some truth in the pending I its? yy¶

Q: No. I'm saying that what Rot oing -- we all --¶

A: He used actual evidence fabricated story.¶

Q: And the actual eviden hat as referred to here are these flight logs that you as the lead lawyer obtained nd brou t back to the Rothstein firm, right?¶

A: I maintain evi nce for all of my cases at the Rothstein firm where I worked, yes.¶

Q: That' 1 I confirming.¶

(A: r that Rothstein gained access to it and used it to support his fairytale? It¶

Oct. 10, 2013, Tr. at 205:9-22.)¶

ov. 10, 2017, Tr. at 163:20-164:14.)¶

Q: Were you reporting to Mr. Adler in how to represent the three Rothstein clients -- the three ladies -- on how to prosecute the Epstein matters?¶

A: Well, this email is dated April 8th, 2009, so I had just started at the firm. I had just got there. Russ Adler was one of the only lawyers that I had known for years before I got to the firm. And Russ Adler handled sexual abuse cases. So, especially in the beginning, I talked to Russ about how to kind of navigate through the complications with Jeffrey Epstein and with the type of¶

defense that was going on. So this just appears that Wayne Black and Russ Adler -- Wayne was the investigator -- that they were talking also about how to -- what we needed to do in the investigation. Yeah, Russ was definitely involved then. He didn't do much in the day-to-day, so I don't want to say anything to that.¶

Q: I understand. But I'm talking about on April 8th, 2009, it looks to me like he's giving you instructions on what to do. Do you agree?¶

A: Not giving me instructions on what to do. I mean, he's telling me bring M Nurik the non-prosecution agreement, is the instruction.¶

Nov. 10, 2017, Tr. at 259:22-260:22)¶

Q: Did you become aware of the fact that your Epstein-related files t nt in time had been requested by Scott Rothstein?¶

A: Yes.¶

Q: How did you become aware of that?¶

A: I think Mike told me -- Fisten.¶

Q: Was there any explanation offered as to, h co Rothstein wanted to see the Epsteinrelated files?¶

A: That if these cases went to trial, nte o try the cases with me.¶

Q: He who?¶

A: He, Scott Rothstein, w the case with me. That's the explanation that I was given.¶

Nov. 10, 201 Tr. at :14-322:2.)¶

Q: You we em oyee, in your mind, and he was the lawyer ultimately at the firm responsible for tree cl ents, true?¶

A: The ty lawyers at the firm. They all work for him. Hundreds of files. He's still the equity e firm, so they are the firm's files. They are not --¶

nderstand. You told me earlier. And I didn't realize that, that the interest that A had in three files, you gave up to Mr. Rothstein and became a salary employee, essentially.¶

A: Gave up to RRA.¶

Q: Mr. Rothstein's firm, correct?¶

A: Right. We've established this.¶

Q: And so that Mr. Rothstein was the lawyer at that firm as the -- one of two equity shareholders who was ultimately responsible for the three Epstein matters?¶

A: For every case in the entire firm, including those --¶

Q Including the three Epstein matters?¶

A: Every case, yeah.¶

IV. Ad sc V. ROTHSTEIN'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY¶

( Nov. 10,2017, Tr. at 338:10-339:7.)¶

Q: You never spoke to Brad about this case?¶

Rothstein testified as follows in this case:¶

A: I didn't say that, but I had a lot more interaction . .. If to the people in the finn, if they are honest with you, they'll tell you my interact r more significant with Russ Adler, probably more so because he was a f mine. My interaction with Russ was far greater by many, many percents eraction with Brad, and then you go down the line. I had more interaction w r. er than I did with Mr. Fistos, more interaction with Jaffe than I did with Mr s, and so on.¶

(Rothstein's June 14, 2012, Tr. at 23:24-2¶

Q: Right. How did you know at and you said you were go' was the case that you c en you said these investors wanted to investigate a fake settlement, how did you know that this case¶

A: From talking to all the the extent that I that I just said, Adler, Fistos, Jaffe, =, Mr. M, to e to him about it.¶

A: I do cific recollection one way or the other. I remember speaking to him at leas brie the day or the day of or the day before the actual investor's due diligence was going on as to what was going on. And I may have spoke to him, I know I spoke to Russ, but may have spoke to him as well within a couple of days just prior to this due diligence be5ause I was trying to at least get some information in my head that I could use when I was creating this story for the investors.¶

Did you s k wi about the case?¶

(Rothstein's June 14,2012, Tr. at 25:12-26:6.)¶

Q: Well, then explain to me. You testified earlier that what was important to the investors to see is that there was a real case, correct?¶

A: Yes.¶

Q: What did you look at or show them — what did you look at, first of all, to see if it was, in fact, a real case?¶

A: I knew it was a real case.¶

Q: How did you know?¶

A: Because my lawyers told me it was a real case. I believed them.¶

Q: What lawyers told you that?¶

A: lrea told you it was a mixture of Russ and Jaffe and Fistos a er d Mr. I mean, I knew it was a real case. We had all these boxes ople really working on the file --¶

Q: How do you know --¶

A: --or they were pulling a hell of a scam on me. Not tha 't deserve it but [--]¶

Q: How did you know, you just said you knew peop king really hard on this case. Who do you know was working on the case?¶

A: The only people that I knew for certain rki g on the case was Brad and Russ Adler was doing his superviso k k, hatever that was. But other than that, I don't know which other lawyers we c isti Mr. I didn't get involved at that level.¶

(Rothstein's June 14, 2012, Tr. at 5it : 5 ea.¶

Rothstein testified as f lows • orback Funding, LLC v. Rothstein, 17th Jud. Cir. Case¶

No. 062009CA062943 XCE:¶

Q: You pull t so kind of a flight manifest; do you recall that?¶

A: Yea point in time I believe it was either Brad or Russ Adler pointed o at one of the pieces of evidence they were using in the actual case was the flight And I actually used that to make a fairly big show. I found that those most of e in these cases the more significant our underlying investigation was and the more ta al izing it was, the more interested the investors got. We had that real piece of evidence and we used it to our advantage to attempt to secure the investor.¶

(Rothstein's Dec. 12, 2011, Tr. at 59:14-25.)¶

Q: Didn't you add some sensational names to the manifest that weren't there to start with?¶

A: I did. I did.¶

Q: Tell us about that.¶

A: There were -- I said that there were additional manifests -- if I remember correctly, I said there were additional manifests that we had discovered containing Bill Clinton's name, Prince Andrew, all being shown flying with young girls on the plane.¶

Q: And do you know whether -- let me back up. The original manifests that were in evidence in the real case, didn't have those names on it?¶

A: No, but it's interesting you bring that up because the way I came up with Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew was Mr. Adler and Mr. both told me on different oc ions that the reason the case — when we were discussing the actual real case, the n it was becoming so, quote, unquote, tasty because they had information that h d s flying Bill Clinton around and Prince Andrews around, the piece that was miS from the real case was the connection to the young girls.¶

Q: The young girls — connection to the young girls was fiction, it¶

A: Not as far as Mr. Epstein is concerned but as far as the o iled are concerned, yes.¶

(Rothstein's Dec. 12,2011, Tr. at 60:10-61:9.)¶

Q: When you were asked — this morning about E trds you really hesitated. I don't know if you know you did that. You were wyrn es, no, maybe so. On him you really paused.¶

A: On the question as whether or not h&wed h ve turned us in, you mean?¶

Q: Whether he was a player or w e ltatvas involved and you didn't quite answer.¶

A: Just because of the way d and socialized with him, I did not know that he was at that level. There a ple, Barry M, second he found out about it would have absolutely done w s appropriately — supposed to do from an ethical standpoint. And then there pie who I say would never do that. And then there are people in the middle. I beli is probably in the middle.¶

(Rothstein's Ded 1 2011, Tr. at 61:15-62:6.)¶

Q: understand. I'm not going to have you go through all 13 boxes, but I'm trying to e of reference. You're talking about a flight manifest or flight manifests for jets, right?¶

A: Yes. This is a very small document. It may have been one or two pages. And I had it specifically set aside. I'd either ask Mr. Adler or Mr. to isolate the flight manifest.¶

(Rothstein's Dec. 19,2011, Tr. at 2278:13-20)¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on November 17, 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: Fina@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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<p>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> <a href="mailto:staff.efile@pathtojustice.com">staff.efile@pathtojustice.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> [REDACTED] 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></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> Jeffrey Epstein</p>

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶