# IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800,OOO(MBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, J. individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. ## ,^ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOT1ON14 LIMINE AS TO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY INFORMATION cos Counter-Plaintiff, J. d rough undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Epstei ' n in Limine as to Sex Offender Registry Information, and as grounds therefore sta tdl as follows: # gnstein's Net Worth is a Factual Issue in Dispute Epstein's Motion in Limine repeatedly claims that documents containing circumstantial evidence of Epstein's net worth are not relevant to any factual issue in dispute pursuant to the parties' Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation. That statement is clearly false. Specifically, Part 2(K) of the Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation confirms that one of the issues of fact for determination at trial is "[w]hat amount, if any, should be assessed against Epstein for punitive damages as punishment for instituting or continuing his civil proceeding against and/or as a deterrent to others." See Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation at p. 10, 12. Although Epstein alleged that he was a billionaire in the Initial Complaint, he has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege as to all punitive damage net worth discovery. is entitled to an adverse inference jury instruction as a result of these assertions, and that request is the subject of a separate motion. See Atlas v. Atlas 708 So. 2d 296, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 199Sgt Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)). intends to also use the detailed asset informatio 's sex offender registration as evidence of Epstein's substantial net worth. As of h istration in New York, Epstein was required to list all homes, vehicles, and pl owns. The registration page submitted by Epstein himself shows that Epstein o residential properties, dozens of vehicles, and at least one airplane. Certainly t evidence that Epstein is a man of significant net worth, and is consistent wjQ is 'med status as a billionaire. Epstein's sex offender regi ormation is therefore relevant to a factual issue in dispute: the amount of punitive'damage that may be awarded by the jury. See Thigpen v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 990 So 2d 639, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("To be relevant, evidence must tend to prove or disproyei material fact."). # Epstein's Prejudice Argument is Circular Reasoning That Leads Directly Back to Him Epstein built the alleged prejudicial playing field he now complains of. In the Initial Complaint, Epstein claimed that had "manufactured" sexual abuse lawsuits on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, lawsuits that were "weak and had minimal value" . . . "for the sole purpose of continuing [Scott Rothstein's] massive Ponzi scheme." Initial Complaint at ¶ 42(h) & 30. Epstein referred to himself as a victimized "Palm Beach Billionaire," as follows: . . . the Litigation Team \[which included I took an emotionally driven set of facts involving alleged innocent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach Billionaire and sought to turn it into a gold mine. Rather than evaluating and resolving the cases based on the merits (i.e. facts) which included knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual actions by each of the claimants . . . Id. at ¶ 49 (emphasis added). And Epstein referenced the Non-Prosecution Agreeiient, which establishes his status as a convicted sex offender. Id. at ¶ 42(1). So, Epstein that he was a billionaire, confirmed the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreem C required him to ) plead guilty to sex crimes and register as a sex offender), and alle () ed "each of the claimants" against him were liars. A Epstein's Complaint, on which maliciOas Pipiecution counterclaim is premised, therefore injected all of the prejudicial circumstances of which Epstein now complains. Consistent with his burden of proof, will establish that Epstein lacked probable cause to make these malicious allegations. In defense oft malicious prosecution counterclaim, Epstein has listed . ft— 'N numerous media articles on which he apparently intends to rely. These articles, to which has raised no objection, variably label Epstein as a convicted child molester and pedophile. For example: 245 1 : Describing Epstein as a "Palm Beach sex offender" Describing Epstein as a "billionaire sex offender" n's Exhibit 246 A : "The Shameful Way Feds Protected Convicted Pedophile Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein" Epstein's Exhibit 246(C): "Feds Deceived Us About Billionaire Sex Offender's 'Sweetheart Deal' Teen Victims Say" Epstein's counsel has also made clear that he intends to establish Epstein's probable cause by, in part, showing that was attempting to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Thus, not only is Epstein responsible for every prejudicial allegation that he chose to make in the maliciously-filed Initial Complaint, his defense of this case is putting at jugci ithe very gci circumstances he claims are prejudicial, which are instead relevant and materi . State v. Gad, 27 So. 3d 768, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[I]n order for relevant, prob: ce to be deemed unfairly prejudicial, it must go beyond the inherent prejudice 2ecl with any relevant evidence."). ### 7, nrlusion The amount of punitive damages, if any, that may be assessed against Epstein is an issue . to be determined at trial. The detailed asset information that Epstein provided as part of his registration as a sex offender-is relevant and material evidence to that contested issue, and there is no unfair prejudice from introducing this evidence because Epstein has already put his status as a convicted sex pffender at issue through the filing of the Initial Complaint and his apparent defense strategy. Thus, Epstein's Motion in Limine should be denied. "S C) 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 15 day o, 201 ola ori a Bar No.: 169440 avid P. Vitale Jr. Florida Bar No.: 115179 Attorney E-Mails: jsx@searcylaw.com and nunccann@searcylaw.com Primary E-Mail: \_scarolateam@searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561)686-6300 Attorneys for Bradley J. [REDACTED] adv. Epstein Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion in Limine as to Sex Offender Registry Information\ Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG **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 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\ Attorneys for [REDACTED] J. Edwards 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\ One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700\ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301\ Phone: (954)-745-5849 [REDACTED] adv. Epstein Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion in Limine as to Sex Offender Registry Information\ Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Fax: (954)-745-3556 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein NOT A CERTIFIED COPY