The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Record

Draft: efta02753887

From: Jack Scarola IJSX@SearcyLaw.corn] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:41 PM To: tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com Subject: Re: Epstein discovery

Thank you.

On May 8, 2012. at 3:27 PM, "Tonja Haddad Coleman" <tonja®tonjahaddadpa.com> wrote:

Fine. > Tonja Haddad Coleman. Esq. > Tonja Haddad, P.A. > Justice Building > 524 South Andrews Avenue > Suite 200 North > Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 > (954) 467-1223 > (954) 337-3716 facsimile > www.tonjahaddadpa.com > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged > and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the > person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you arc > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email > and destroy all copies of the original message. > Original Message > From: Jack Scarola Emailto:JSX@SearcyLaw.com] > Sent: Tuesday. May 08, 2012 3:23 PM > To: <tonjartScahaddadpa.com> > Cc: Brad > Subject: Re: Epstein discovery > You have misunderstood my communication. I am not asking you to waive > anything but only to agree that the production we are making does not > constitute a waiver as to anything we have continued to assert is > privileged. > On May 8, 2012, at 3:08 PM, "Tonja Haddad Coleman" > tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com > wrote: >> >> Jack:

permits you to respond to a discovery request by stating that

"without waiving the objection" you are producing the documents.

However, because I have yet

to

see the documents, or your privilege log, I cannot possibly agree to

anything, much less concede a privilege, as it is my understanding

that

some

of the items to which you are objecting, for example, are electronic

communications to/from government entities which, as Mr. [REDACTED] is

likely aware from his days as a government attorney, are legally a

matter of

public

record, will not, in fact, be privileged under any theory.

That being said, kindly send what you have and if we still deem it

non-responsive, in non-compliance with the Court's order, or

otherwise not subject to any privilege, we can take it up with the Judge.

Thank you.

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.

Tonja Haddad, P.A.

Justice Building

524 South Andrews Avenue

Suite 200 North

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(954) 467-1223

(954) 337-3716 facsimile

www.tonjahaddadpa.com

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged

and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the

person(s)

named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified

that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this

communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

recipient,

please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of

the original message.

-----Original Message-----

From: Jack Scarola [mailto:JSX@SearcyLaw.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:35 AM

To: tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com

Cc: Brad [REDACTED]

I have completed my review of the documents responsive to your

outstanding discovery request and it appears from that review that

ALL of the

documents

fall within the attorney work product privilege. Nevertheless, we are

prepared to produce the documents to you today with very minor and

clearly identified redactions, if you will agree that our production

does not constitute or support a waiver of any other privilege

assertion. In the absence of such an agreement, we will be obliged to

assert privilege as to all the documents and make them available to

the Court for in camera inspection.

Please let me have your response at your earliest convenience so as

not to delay our production.

*****

*****

***** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication

is not

a

secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons.

This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney

Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the

Electronic

Communication

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information contained in this

E-mail

message is privileged and confidential under Fla. R. Jud. Admin.

2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s)

named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution, or copy of this

communication

is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the

sender

and shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this

communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by

e-mail or

by

telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original

message.

Thank you.

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

***** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication is

not a secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons.

This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic
Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information
contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of
the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and
shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Thank you.

*****

*****

*****

*****

Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication is not a secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

*****

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

CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. individually,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER

THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:, The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to c and to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant . In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of the former law firm of the Defendants and ROTHSTEIN. The Court finds that the Amended Request for Production and request for subpoena, does request documents which the Court finds are either relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the Defendant shall produce any non-privileged documents as identified in Paragraph 13 of Mt Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order. In addition, the Plaintiff EPSTEIN is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the identical documents that arc non-privileged.

Nothing in this Order shall constitute an waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant and/or others may file an objection :to any such documentation on any privilege grounds an s all file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents.

Epstein v. Rothstein and Case No. 502009CA0408003COCCMB/Division AG Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED in at West Palm 13eaegiblEn Beach County, Florida

this day of April, 2012. iv

pR eDdiNo a ATE. JuocE ° 2op HONORABLE DAVID F. O1Ow

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq. Burnett, P.A. 901 Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Lilly Ann M, Esq. The L•S Law Firm Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131

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

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

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

iaffe, j Weiss' Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually, and a a individually.

Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein. by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court to enter an order compelling the Defendant yet again, to provide responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production. Plaintiff likewise requests that this Court order sanctions against Defendant for his direct and flagrant disregard of this Court's previous Order dated April 10. 2012. In support thereof, Plaintiff states:

INTRODUCTION

On March 9. 2012, Plaintiff Epstein served upon Defendant =a Motion to Compel and to Amend and Lift a Protective Order. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." On April 10, 2012, this Court entered an Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, stating that "within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the Defendant identified in Paragraph 13 of shall produce any non-privileged documents as [sic] Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order." See Order entered April 10, 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." The Order further avowcd that "[n]othing in this Order shall constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant and/or others may file an objection to any such documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically, identifying such documents.- See Exhibit B (emphasis added). Accordingly. all responses were due on or before April 30, 2012.

On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff received Defendant IM untimely response to the afore-referenced Request to Produce. A perfunctory review of the items provided by established that his response was both incomplete and deficient. response contained nothing more than partial electronic communications between himself and three or four of the countless reporters with whom he had communications during the relevant time period. On or about May 15, 2012, and after sending a letter to Defendant explaining his non-compliance, Plaintiff filed its initial Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. In response thereto. Defendant served upon Plaintiff a privilege log' as to the electronic mail correspondence between and a member of the press, a There was no reference, objection, or privilege asserted as to the rest of the items Defendant was ordered by this Court to produce; to wit: "[aill e-mails, data, correspondence. and similar documents dated April I, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between J. Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cam Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of

I While the document is labeled "Privilege log," it contains an objection to each of the Discovery requests as "irrelevant" notwithstanding that this Court has already deemed them as relevant.

Investigation, (d) and (e) any other news employees or reporters." See Exhibit A. Accordingly, Defendant's response undeniably corroborates that he wholly disregarded this Court's Order, failed to comply with this Court's Order to produce the items responsive to Plaintiff's Request, and failed to provide any privilege log with respect to any of the afore-referenced parties, with the single exception being_:

Finally, and of paramount concern, is the undeniable fact that these requests were due to Plaintiff on or before April 30, 2012; two full weeks before the deadline imposed upon Plaintiff by the Federal court to turn over documents Plaintiff intends to utilize in its deposition of Scott Rothstein; the Co-Defendant in this case. The documents were due to the Federal court on or before May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff's deposition of Scott Rothstein is now scheduled for the week of June H, 2012; dates about which Defendant has firsthand knowledge and has been aware for several weeks. To date, and notwithstanding the above, Defendant has willingly, intentionally, and irrefutably ignored an Order from this Court resulting in his calculated thwarting of the discovery process. As such, and as demonstrated more fully below, Plaintiff's requested order and sanctions are warranted.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

As this Court is aware, it Ordered Defendant to provide the following specific items:

[all/ c-mails, data, correspondence, and similar document April 1, 2008through August 1, 2010 1) and J. . Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cam Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office," the Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) In and (e) any other news employees or reporters.

See Exhibit A. The Order further avowed that Defendant was permitted to assert any alleged privilege by filing privilege log specifically identifying such documents."

See Exhibit B. failed to either provide the items requested or aprivilege log as to his communications with all listed entities/persons, other than 1.1. 2 it is well-settled law that if aparty alleges that information requested from it is protected by privilege, then aprivilege log must be prepared and attached to the response, or the privilege is waived.

See TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (stating that failure to provide areason for privilege and prepare aprivilege log constitutes waiver of the privilege) (emphasis added). Here, fails to either respond to the Request to Produce or assert any privilege as Court ordered, with the single aforereferenced exception. A court has the inherent power to implement and enforce effective judicial proceedings pursuant to pretrial rules. As such, when a party fails to comply with apretrial order, acourt has broad discretion in determining sanctions. First Republic Corp. of America v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly. Defendant ME' inapposite and patent disregard for this Court's Order mandates sanctions.

Finally, Plaintiff certifies that he "in good faith, has conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action." FLA. R.Civ. P. 1.380. A true and correct copy of the correspondence sent to Defendant regarding the first Motion to

2 Theifiability and veracity of ME assertion that the communications between himself and are "Work Product Privilege" will be addressed in aseparate Motion and Memorandum of taw, as Plaintiff opposes this contention and submits that it has no basis in law or fact.

Compel is attached hereto as "Exhibit C," and the second, which was sent after receiving the "privilege log" is attached hereto as "Exhibit D." Pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Epstein is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees necessitated by Defendant's flagrant disregard of both this Court's Order and the aforereferenced Rules of Civil Procedure.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for all of the reasons delineated above and in reliance upon the applicable law cited herein. Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court, yet again, Order Defendant to respond in full to Plaintiff's Request to Produce, award attorney's fees as sanctions, and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper, including any available for EM interference and impediment regarding the deposition of Scott Rothstein.

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties listed on the attached service list, via facsimile and US Mail, this May 30. 2012.

Tonja Haddad Co man, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 LAW OFFICES OF IOWA I IADDAD, PA 524 South Andrews Avenue Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 (facsimile) Tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com

SERVICE LIST

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG

Jack Scarola. Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury. Goldberger, & Weiss, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

E Jaffe Weissing Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301

Lilly Ann Esq. LS Law Firm Four Seasons Tower 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131

IN CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 10 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOCKMB Judge David F.

JEttREY

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

V.

SCOTT ROTH ' 'vidually, and J. individually,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EpREJIISP8 MOTION TO COMTEL AND AMEND ptiatatX0IRDER

Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through bis undersigned counsel, moves this Court to compel the production of documents from Defendant, J. c'M ) and to amend and lift a protective order relating to a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee. The Othttads far this M6tion are as follows:

  • I. On April 12, 2010, Epstein sent a Request to Produce to requesting the following documents: SemJ. correspondence, Memos, or similar documents between S,cott W. Rothstein; William Amer" and Adler and/or any attorney or rePreieritatiVe of,RRA or TI:CaSy (person or entity) regarding Jeffrey Epstein r hich mentions Jeffrey Epstein (including Mike Fisten, Kenneth Jenne, or Rick (Rich) Fandrey).
    • 2. On May 11, 2010, served his response to this request by stating:
      • 3. Objection as to communications to or from investigators as that is protected by the work-product and/or attorney-client privilege.

employee Rothstein, Bode; Deborah Christina Kittcrman, Gary of the following regarding Jeffrey Epstein: 1. Any and all email communications by/between any attorney and/or rmer Rothstein law firm, including but not limited to, Scott William Berger, 'en Jenne, David w - Richard Fandry, and on e one hand, and any

Epstein v. Rothstein and — Case No. 502009CA040800)OOOO.4B/Div. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order

  1. Although did not object to producing all documents requested, he did not produce any documents responsive to this request. Nor did who asserted privilege, prepare a privilege log related to this request. It is important to note that this request went to documents within possession and control as opposed to documents that were produced from the Bankruptcy Trustee.

  2. The documents requested in #3 were also requested by means of a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee dated April 17, 2010. After several motions and orders to compel, finally prepared a privilege log relating to communications to and from the investigators among others. However; did not produce any e-mails or documents between the lawyers at RRA and (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation — to which he had not objected and for which he did not claim a privilege on his privilege log.

  3. did not produce any documents by and between RRA lawyers or representatives and third parties such as • a reporter, and any other news employees or reporters. has not identified any communication with reporters on his privilege log.

  4. On January 3, 2011, Epstein sent a second subpoena requesting the following documents from the Bankruptcy Trustee:

Epstein v. Rothstein and Case No. 502009CA0408003OC7C1CMB/Div. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order

  • a) U.S. Attorney's office;
  • b) State of Florida Attorney's Office
  • c) Federal Bureau of Investigations;
  • d) City of Palm Beach Police Department;
  • e) Any investigator working for the State of Florida;
  • f) Any attorney, law firm and any agent of any attorney or law firm who represented any individual with a claim against Jeffrey Epstein.

  1. On April 1, 2011, Epstein sent a Request to Produce to seeking documents that support M' contention that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment right by speaking to reporters.

  2. On May 5, 2011, responded with objections and claims of privilege. did not prepare a privilege log even though the Court ordered him to do so.

  3. On July 14, 2011, this Court entered an Order granting a Motion for Protective Order without prejudice relating to the records on the subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee based on scope'and relevancy. A copy of the Order is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1.

  4. On November 11, 2011, filed his Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and a lengthy Statement of Undisputed Facts iti Which he purported to identify "summary judgment evidence" on which he relied. Such "undisputed facts" reference and/or quote the Palm Beach Police Incident Report (see ¶3), correspondence from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (see ¶¶5, 19, 25), correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel (see 116, 20, 27) to support = argument that he acted in good faith and that Epstein "violated his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office..." (¶28). also quotes correspondence from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein's counsel (see ¶6) specifically in support of his contention that there was a "joint attempt to minimize Epitein's civil exposure."

Epstein v. Rothstein and Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/1, Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order

(Id). =also cites from a proposed plea agreement (see ¶20) in support of his contention that Epstein engaged in witness tampering.

  1. Mhas also referred to statements allegedly made by Epstein to a reporter in ¶¶80-81 of his Undisputed Statement of Facts. =contends Epstein's alleged statements to reporters waives his Fifth Amendment rights.

  2. As a result of Edwards relying on communications with the government and reporters as part of his Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and to support his contention that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment rights by speaking with reporters, discovery is highly appropriate on these issues and should be permitted.

  3. Epstein wishes to amend and narrow his request to the Trustee to obtain the following records:

All e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar ocuments dated April 1, 2008 through August I, 2010 by and between J. Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara .. Mike is n an any one of the following regarding or mentioning e ey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, b) the State Att rney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) and (e) any other news employees or reporters.

  1. The described documents arc not privileged, so no in camera review is necessary. Epstein's request has been narrowed so that compliance and production are not overly broad or burdensome. The request is relevant and necessary in order for Epstein to defend Ftenewed Motion for &in:unary Judgment, including contention that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment rights by discussions and communications with media, news employees or reporters.

Epstein v. Rothstein and • Cie. No. 502009CA040800XX)O(Ml3IDiv. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order

  1. Based on the above, Epstein requests the following relief:

a. An Order directing to produce the above-described records that are in his possession and control;

b. An Order directing the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records described above and amending the prior protective order so as to allow the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records described above; and

c. That the Order contain a specific deadline for compliance. Epstein requests compliance within twenty (20) days of the datb of the Order so as to allow time for any additional discovery in advance of Rothstein's deposition and in advance of the hearing on

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.

W. The undersigned cOUnsel certifies that he has and will continue to attempt to resolve this matter with counsel for without the need of a hearifig.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court grant its Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order for the reasons set forth above.

L. Aokerxxitan, Jr. _ .

954 BURNETT, P.A. 90 omt est 777 South FJagler Drive WestPrilm-Beach; Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 802-9044 Facsimile: (561) 802-9976 and E. Knight Florida Bar. No. 607363 .

Epstein v. Rothstein and— Case No 502009CA0408003DOCCKB/Mv. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order

WHITE BURIVETT, P.A. into Sauto Plaza, 14th Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Natal, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein

CERTIFICATE OF SERWCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. Mail on this O day of March, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2B9 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, PA" 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; and Marc S. Nurik, Esq., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East Broward Blvd., Suith 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

carman, Jr.

IN THE aRcurrcouRr OF THE 1St JUDICIAL aRcurr IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXX/v1B Judge David F. al

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

PlaintifEColmter-Defendant,

v.

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and individually,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER

THIS MATchit came before the Court on Plaintiff Jeffrey Eintein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in thOpremises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:, The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to • to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of t eformer aw firm of this Defendants and ROTHSTEIN. The' Court finds that the Amended Request for Production and request for su poena, oes request documents which the Court finds are either reticent and/ortiiiiiiiiidilk 6ilailiiiclui lead to admissible evidence. Therefore; WitliiThitenTRIOYditia of the date:of:this Orderrthe• Defendant shall produce any non-privileged doCuments as identifiedjp.Parit h_l3_oLEDIVARDSL otton to. mpel.andAmendProtective-Order. the Plaintiff BPS is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the l i identiaitreediffents al are non-privileged.

Nothitig in this Order shill tonStihite an waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant and/or others may file an objection 'to any such documentation on any privilege group an s all file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents.

Epstein v. Rothstein and [REDACTED]
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Division AG
Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED in [REDACTED] at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida
this ____ day of April, 2012.

SIGNED AND DATED
APR 10 2012
JUDGE DAVID F. CROW

HONORABLE DAVID F. CROW
CIRCUIT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

[REDACTED] L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq.
[REDACTED] Burnett, P.A.
901 [REDACTED] Point West
777 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Lilly Ann [REDACTED], Esq.
The L.S Law Firm
Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131

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

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

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

[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esq.
[REDACTED], Jaffe, Weissing, [REDACTED], Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

TONJA HADDAD, PA

524 South Andrews Avenue
Suite 200 North
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

954.467.1223 telephone
964.337.3716 facsimile
tonja@tonjahaddadpa.com

May 11, 2012

Via US and Electronic Mail

Jack Scarola, Esq.

Scarcy [REDACTED] et al.

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.

West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Re: Epstein v Edwards et al

Dear Mr. Scarola:

We are in receipt of your purported responsive documents to Paragraph 13 of our Motion to Compel and have reviewed same. Please note that the request to which you were Court-ordered to respond required you to provide the following:

"All e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office; (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (d) Conchita Sarnoff; and (e) any other news employees or reporters." See Paragraph 13 of Motion to Compel.

However, you provided little more than multiple copies of correspondence responsive to subparts (d) and (e). As such, please be advised that if we do not receive items responsive to the actual request to wit: all e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, and (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation on or before Monday, May 14, 2012, we will be left with no choice but to, yet again, file all appropriate motions with the Court and seek any and all sanctions available, including those to which you will be vulnerable for violation of a Court order.

Sincerely,
TONJA HADDAD, PA

Tonja Haddad Coleman
for the firm

From: Tonja Haddad Coleman [tonja@tonjahaddadpa.comj

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:47 AM

To: 'Mary E. Pirrotta'

Cc: 'Jack Scarola'

Subject: RE: adv. Epstein

Jack:

To avoid any further miscommunications, misunderstandings, attempts to circumvent or delay the legal process, and any other intellectually dishonest or legally inconsistent statements made by you, please note the following with respect to your purported statement below and its accompanying attachment. As you are undoubtedly aware, you were Ordered by Judge to produce the following (or provide a proper privilege log regarding same):

[a]II c-mails, data, correspondence, and sir do i dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between J. . Scott W. Rothstein, Marc, Nurik, Care Holmes, Mike Fisten and any on of he following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's OfTi tate ttorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) and (e) any other news employees or reporters.

The plain language contained therein could not be more clear and definite. However, you have provided a privilege log that addresses correspondence with one of the parties listed above. As such, you are, yet again, failing to comply with the Court's Order. Accordingly, we disagree with your assessment as delineated below and do not agree that you have completed production in accordance with Judge Order.

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.

TONJA HADDAD, P.A.

Justice Building

524 South Andrews Avenue

Suite 200 North

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(954) 467-1223

(954) 337-3716 facsimile

www.tonjahaddadpa.com

The informaton contained in this transmisson may corneal pnviteged and confidential information It is intended only for the use of the perSOn(s) named above. If yOu are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of tens communication is strictly prohibited. II you ate not the intended recipient. please contact tne sender by reply email and destroy all copes or the original message.

EXHIBIT D

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/source-drafts-cfa3e1ce90dcd7888297525bbf5689923b37fc31a90827108a013e91041280ce/.