examination into an allegation-by-allegation defamation analysis of the original Complaint requires inquiry of E.W., as well as L.M., into the areas alleged, including the NPA, the CVRA action and the details of his clients' claims because has made those central to the trial of this matter.
E.W. is a client of who asserted tort claims against Epstein. Those claims were resolved through a confidential settlement agreement between E.W. and Epstein my 2010. E.W., together with L.M.3, also brought a Crimes Victims' Rights Act ac • t the United States Government. The CVRA action is ongoing and, in that tr, . and L.M. are attempting to set aside a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA; entered into with the United States Government.
has informed the Court that in o S St, lish his burden of proof he will, among other things:
[Establish] Epstein's mo S to \\ r get for extortionist purposes, [and] prove ip role had in the joint prosecution efforts tiple civil claims being prosecuted against Epstein with the' punitive damage exposure as well as the Crime Victim's Righ case challenginaitein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, wh as spearheaded by and exposes Epstein t thy incarceration for his extensive history of child mol atio
(11/22/17, Et pone in Opposition to Epstein's Revised Omnibus Motion in Limine, e.s.) \[D.E. 41
intends to prove that Epstein's motive for filing this action was to, among other things, force to abandon his efforts to set aside the NPA through the CVRA action:
10 And we intend to prove that Jeffrey 11 Epstein's motive in filing these knowingly 12 false claims against Brad - his 13 motive was to extort into
L.M. also resolved her claims more than seven years ago, in July 2010.
14 abandoning or cheaply compromising the 15 rights of his clients, and abandoning his 16 efforts through the Crime Victims' Rights 17 Act case to set aside the non prosecution 18 agreement.
(11/29/17 Tr. 106:10-18, e.s.)4
3 And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that 4 Mr. is lead counsel in this Crime 5 Victims' Rights Act case. He clearly knows, 6 because he's a participant in that case. H 7 has intervened in the case. He knows that 8 the consequences of that Crime Victims 9 Rights Act case could be that he lose 10 immunity that he negotiated with t 11 Attorney's Office. 12 So being able to push Brad Edw 13 aside as the primary moving force n the 14 Crime Victims' Rights Act case is obviously 15 a reasonable conclusion Ba se 16 circumstances.
(11/29/17 Tr. 112:3-16, e.s.)
has argued that the jury St b uformed about both the NPA and the CVRA:
13 MR. SCAROLA-14 that it i 15 informed 16 agreemen 17 ente it into evidence. They need to 18 unde - gle' d what the Crime Victims' Rights 19e c: y. i onor, I believe dable that the jury be o what the non-prosecution It would be our intention to
(11/29/17 Tr. 3- .)
as identified E.W. on his Witness List. [D.E. 1042, ¶ 15.] has also designated'khd cross designated portions of E.W.'s testimony to be used at the trial of this matter. [D.E. 1022; D.E. 1130.] Because E.W. is incarcerated, the parties can only rely on her deposition testimony at trial.
Excerpts of the November 29, 2017, hearing transcript are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
(12/5/17 Tr. 79:24- s .24 It illY
? e part of as so recognized that the NPA and the CVRA action are going to become a
The Court has made it clear that it intends to allow to present evidence and testimony concerning representation of his three clients (E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe) of claims they brought against Epstein:
24 THE COURT: The only thing I would say 25 to that, Mr. Scarola, is I don't want to mix 1 apples and oranges. And that is, I don't 2 want to place the Court's incriminator [sic] o 3 getting too far afield and turning this into 4 a case about alleged sexual exploitation, 5 particularly of others, outside of 6 Mr. ' representation. That woul 7 serve only to inflame the jury, and, 8 would cause the playing field to be 9 unleveled, because the defense to th 10 malicious prosecution claim, i Epstein 11 and his attorneys, would hay fighting 12 claims that they may not e about 13 much, much less the ones ey do. 14 So again, I want to ce those 15 three claims that we t by 16 Mr. on is clients, and 17 center on those hat would be 18 relevant to the us prosecution claim 19 and the alleg ing up of those claims, 20 the alleged to align himself with 21 Rothstein lleged attempt to factor 22 these ca tentially Mr. 1 23 conduct related to those factoring 24 matt s.
\* * \*
3 there is no way around the fact that the NPA 4 is going to become a part of this trial.
(11/29/17 Tr. 108:3-4.)
11 THE COURT: The NPA, I have already 12 indicated that the inclination would be - 13 if properly predicated - would be allowed.
(11/29/17 Tr. 167:11-13.)
9 Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. US 10 case.
11 MR. SCAROLA: That's the CVRA 12 Your Honor. case,
13 THE COURT: That will likely be
14 discussed - obviously, it will be
15 discussed. How much of the pleadings
16 need to be addressed will be a matt
17 Court's consideration later.
(12/5/17 Tr. 215:9-17.)
On October 12, 2017, Epstein's counsel co Vbut did not conclude because of counsel's direction to the witness no questions until the issue of a protective order had been resolved, the deposition he Gadsden Correctional Facility where E.W. is incarcerated until April 2018. W. was represented by himself during her deposition, counsel who not representing E.W.) instructed her not to answer questions that related to t e e !It VRA action because he claimed they were not relevant and because E.W. did not hav oppo nity to prepare for that line of questioning. Specifically, counsel asse
Ale, MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, I'm going to 8 questions relating to the Crime Victims' Rights Act 9 case?
7 interrupt for just a moment. Do you have other
10 MR. GOLDBERGER: I do.
11 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. I am going to object to
12 your examination of [E.W.] on issues relating to
13 another case. Those matters don't have any relevance
14 or materiality to this lawsuit in which she is being
15 deposed; her counsel has not had an opportunity to
16 prepare her for a deposition in the Crime Victims'
17 Rights Act case. I am going to instruct her not to 18 answer any additional questions regarding the Crime 19 Victims' Rights Act case. You may proffer the 20 additional questions that you'd like to ask for the 21 record, but she will not answer those pending our 22 ability to obtain a protective order. 23 MR. GOLDBERGER: Well, we have lots of 24 questions that we intend to ask about the Crime 25 Victims' Rights Act, and based on your cause of action
1 and your theory that you've explained to thes24.rt as 2 to why Mr. Epstein filed a claim against yo 3 it is relevant and I recognize that you arl wising 4 the client not to answer the question o 5 MR. SCAROLA: She's not my client, thi 6 witness. 7 MR. GOLDBERGER: And you're instruct 8 MR. SCAROLA: And I am instructirogliker - I 9 am informing you that additionaa gabstions relating to 10 the Crime Victims' Rights Act case, beyond those that 11 have already been asked and answered, are not relevant 12 or material, or reasonably calculated to lead to 13 relevant and material ormation.
(E.W.'s 10/12/17 Tr. 74:6-75:13, c.s.) \[D.E
6 MR. SCAROLA: Y 7 irrelevant, 8 lead to the 9 informati questions are al, not reasonably calculated to ery of relevant and material is lawsuit.
\* * \*
11 W. S OLA: In addition to that, this 144 , A 1 ;tness was not noticed as being deposed in a separate C action. Her counsel, with regard to the separate VRA action were not noticed, therefore her counsel ave not had an opportunity to consult with her 6 regarding giving testimony in the separate CVRA -
+
\* * \*
18 MR. SCAROLA: -- action. So those are the 19 objections that were previously raised, in addition to 20 others stated as to specific questions, they are of 21 the objections that I will incorporate simply by 22 saying "same objection, same instruction," for 23 purposes of not burdening the record with repetition 24 of the same objection and same instructions.
(E.W.'s 10/12/17 Tr. 97:6-24.) [D.E. 1027.]
counsel suggested that questions to E.W. be proffered on the record and he would raise the appropriate objections and move for a protective order and that E.W. would not answer those questions until he had the ability to move for a protective order, thus leaving this issue open for further deposition testimony. (E.W.'s 10/12/17 Tr. 76:24-77:8.) [D.E. 1027.]
The following questions were posed to E.W. to which she was instruct to answer based on these objections:
(E.W.'s 10/12/17 Tr. 77-82, 98-100.) \[D.E. 10
In his Complaint, Epste at, after joined Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, he filed a Motion asking e Court to make the NPA public. (D.E. 5, 1 42.1.) That motion was filed in May 2009 e' ne tc o client's individual civil actions against Epstein, not in the CVRA actio c e e v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893, D.E. 74.) At the time filed the mo his three clients had the NPA and there was no legitimate purpose for them to make the a ement public. Furthermore, the CVRA court had then recently (February 2009) denied Motion to Unseal the NPA in that action. (Jane Doe v. U.S., Case No. 08-CV-80736, D.E. 36.)
was to stop wants the Court to believe, however, that Epstein's motive in filing this action from challenging the NPA through the CVRA action. What failed
to inform the Court about at the recent hearings, however, is that at the time Epstein filed suit against Rothstein and in December 2009, the CVRA action had been sitting dormant since February 2009 and that he took no further action in that matter until after settled his clients' cases with Epstein and then only after the Court administratively closed the case in September 2010. also failed to inform the Court that in August 2008, he dvised the CVRA court that he was unsure if the relief he was seeking was in his clien t interest. ("Because of the legal consequences of invalidating the current agreemen ' A• Se ly not in my clients' best interest to ask for the relief that we initially asked for. jf t8 r. 4-5) (Ex. C.) Furthermore, in each of their Complaints against Epstein, ents relied on the NPA as a basis that Epstein could not deny liability of their clai y initiated their civil lawsuits against Epstein in August and September 2008. (E S. ► i p ein, 156 Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2008-CA-028058, D.E. 4, ¶¶ 19-20); (L.M,m 15ih Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2008- CA-028051, D.E. 4, ¶y 19-20); (Jane v. EThtein, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, -21). The filing of his clients' Complaints coupled with statements to th court led Epstein to believe that clients were not pursing their remedies in action. It was not until March 21, 2011, about a year after settling their laws with Lipstein, when E.W. and L.M. filed their Motion for Summary Judgment for Finding olat ns of the NPA, that it was clear that E.W. and L.M. were continuing with their efforts e the NPA.
Epstein should be able to present evidence at trial to show that E.W. and L.M.'s pursuit in invalidating the NPA was not a motive for filing his action against Rothstein and The types of questions posed to E.W. during her deposition and the many logical follow-up questions concerning the CVRA action are relevant. They shed light on the timing of the filing of the CVRA
action, the lack of prosecution of the case, how the NPA actually benefited E.W. up to the point she settled her case with Epstein, her discussions with third parties, including law enforcement, about the alleged acts and her past recollections and positions. In addition, E.W.'s responses to the questions are expected to undermine her credibility because her statements have been inconsistent. Finally, it is believed that E.W.'s responses will demonstrate a lack of m mory as to events that occurred years ago when the alleged acts occurred. The testimony sod relevant and will allow the jury to weigh E.W.'s testimony and credibility at trial.
On October 26, 2017, filed a Motion for Protective c ng that the Court preclude E.W. from responding to those questions proffered ci3 e rd with respect to the CVRA action. [D.E. 1026.] During the deposition, Edw t' c el, who did not and does not represent E.W., instructed E.W. not to respond to "Sts, ' relating to the CVRA action and objected to the line of questioning claimin As ation was irrelevant, immaterial, not reasonably calculated to lead to the disc ilo ithlevant and material information in this lawsuit, and because E.W. did not have an nktu to prepare for that line of questioning. counsel indicated that before E answer the questions he needed the ability to move for a protective order, thus 1 ' his issue open for further deposition discovery. (E.W. 10/12/17 Tr. 76:24-77:8; 9 that the CV bringi ton. 4.) [ .E. 1027.] As set forth above, himself has taken the position b relevant and has made it a central focus of Epstein's alleged motive for cannot have it both ways. He cannot instruct E.W. not to answer questions about the CVRA action on the grounds that they are irrelevant, but then argue that the CVRA action is the motive behind Epstein's filing of this case.
Epstein continues to maintain that malicious prosecution Counterclaim is limited to an analysis of the civil proceeding filed by Epstein against which does not relate to
the merits of the cases filed by clients against Epstein. The case is not about whether clients' tort claims are true but, rather, it is about whether Epstein lacked probable cause to initiate and continue the original proceeding. To prevail on his Counterclaim for malicious prosecution, must prove that Epstein filed a civil proceeding against him "without probable cause." See Korman v. M, 821 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). burden is "onerous." See v. GCC Beverages, Inc., 502 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 19
While Epstein disagrees that he is required to prove that each alle 1 ' theComplaint is true, he must now be allowed to defend the allegations. Accordin y, h3 Id be allowed to re-open E.W.'s deposition to ask the proffered questions an' in e follow up about the CVRA action and any other issues that may now be a of this case in light of the Court's recent rulings.
himself has insisted that CV action is relevant to establish Epstein's motive for initiating this proceeding. Acc i Court should deny Motion for Protective Order and grant Epstein's requ~t t en E.W.'s deposition, both as to the CVRA action and follow up as well as o tions that are relevant to this proceeding. Because E.W. is incarcerated and not released until after the special set trial of this matter, Epstein will be prejudiced if t allowed to re-open the deposition.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on January 10, 2018, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1).
LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 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: Tina@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 mep@searcylaw.com jsx@searcylaw.com scarolateam@searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] |
Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 njs@FLAppellateLaw.com kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] |
|
J. [REDACTED] |
Marc S. Nurik |
|
Jack A. Goldberger |
NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, , individually,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.
VOLUO 7
14 ...,
O4
DATE TA uesday, December 5th, 2017 TIME: 10:02 a.m. - 4:35 p.m. PLA 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10C West Palm Beach, Florida FORS: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge
A46 :) This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aid, when and where the following proceedings were ; rted by:
Sonja D. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 471-2995
1 2 about children being transported on the airplane?
3 4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: The latter is the one that will have to be discussed further, again, as I pointed out earlier, when the context comes up and it's introduced or attempted tAz: be introduced outside the presence of t NS:" jury.
9 10 11 To the, what I perceive to be three questions, the two former que s the answer would be yes.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ASel MR. SCAROLA: Wil h ourt take ASIS 1 judicial notice of 1 i Statute 90.404 c (2), which is c on referred to as the Federal Rule 415(g), which ex permits the introduction of evidc ce wi h regard to other sexual against children, so that the jury s ware of the fact that Mr. , not 0 nly had a good faith basis to conduct this discovery, but quite arguably would have been grossly negligent to have failed to pursue it?
24 GLD (THE)(COURT? (The) on (EHTTE0 Q (siay) to (t 1 TE t7)LI41 agat2jra is Q rc ct 6..Ta 7r ) to mix
apples and oranges. And that is, I don't
[2]want to place the court's incriminator on
③
(getting) (too) (far) (afield) (and) (turning) (this) (into)
④
(a case about alleged sexual exploitation)
⑤
[particularly of others, outside of ]
(Mr. [REDACTED]) (representation). (That [would]
serve only to inflame the jury, and, again,
(8)
would cause (the playing field to become)
(9)
(unleveled) because (the) defense (to) (the)
[1][malicious] [prosecution] [claim], [i.e.] [epstein]
[1](and his attorneys would have to be fighting)
[1]claims (that) (they) (may) (not) (even) (know) (about)
(13)
much, much [Less (the) (ones) (that) (they) (do).
14
(So again, U want to center on those)
[1](three claims that were brought by)
(16)
Mr. Edwards on behalf of his clients, and
(17)
center on those aspects that would be
[1](relevant) to (the) (malicious) (prosecution) (claim)
[1](and (the alleged ginning up of (those claims))
(20)
(the alleged attempt to align himself with
(21)
Rothstein, the alleged attempt to factor
(22)
(these cases,) potentially Mr. ( )
(23)
conduct) as (it) related to (those factoring)
(24)
matters.
25MR. SCAROLA: I am -- I am sorry. I
1 number 88 is Hyperion Air passenger
2 manifest. Same ruling. Same thing with the
3 flight information.
4 Eighty-nine. Passenger list, 90, same
5 ruling.
6 Notepad/notes, Maria.
7 MR. SCAROLA: Same argument.
8 THE COURT: Same ruling.
9 (Pleadings of Jane Doe (1) and (2) vs. US)
10 (case.)
11 (MR. SCAROLA: That's the CVRA case,)
12 (Your Honor.)
13 (THE COURT: That will likely be)
14 (discussed -- obviously,) (it will) be)
15 (discussed.) How much of the pleadings that
16 need to be addressed will be a matter of the
17 (Court's consideration later.)
18 Epstein Fifth Amendment speech.
19 MR. SCAROLA: Those are just a
20 reference to deposition excerpts.
21 THE COURT: Reiter letter to Krischer.
22 That's already been talked about. That's a
23 duplication, unless he wrote another one.
24 I think it's a duplication. You can
25 check.
NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
L
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, individually, CO S
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
DATE TAKEN: ay, November 29th, 2017
TIME: a.m. - 3:55 p.m.
PLACE . Dixie Highway, Room 10C
t Palm Beach, Florida
BEFORE: onald Hafele, Presiding Judge
This case came on to be heard at the time and place afores when and where the following proceedings were rept)
Sonja D.
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 471-2995
plaintiffs' lawyers, and I'm going to target one of these victims. I'm going to sue them both, and I'm going to show them what happens when you try to take on this billionaire. That's what he was trying to do. Plain and simple. And we are entitled, I respectfully suggest, to be able to prov just how big a motive that was, stake. what's
THE COURT: I'm not in dis with you. ent
When this went on response to Mr. Lin is presentation as to Mr. Epstein's sons were what? Was that this ca tP ned around directly to harm potent r. Epstein and provide Mr. Edw with the motivation. So I'm not sagreement with you. )b d, my first
0 A÷c ertainly one of the more pertinent things The only thing I am concerned with - that I am concerned with for today's hearing, again, relates back to how far we are going to permit the jury to hear, or how much we are going to permit the jury to hear as it relates to these other claims.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
÷onor. MR. LINK: That's correction, Your
Now, as you further described it - again, subject to Mr. Link's rebuttal -- (Ehere is no way around the fact that the NPA) (is going to become a part of this trial.)
As I have indicated earlier, and the reason for my question was to ensure that my understanding was correct that the princip reason -- or a principle reason Mr. Eps continues to invoke the Fifth Amendm because of the pendency of this case, correct?
MR. LINK: General the pending of the case --
THE CO potential of a criminal -- u her criminal exposure if the NPA get oked -- or whatever the nology is --
THE COURT: -- in Judge Marra's court, assuming he's still the Judge on the case.
MR. SCAROLA: Just to clarify that point, if I could.
There's no way around it.
MR. LINK: We understand that, Judge.
THE COURT: Fine.
The question that I am going to pose to you and Mr. Scarola now is how far we are going to go with that agreement and where the 403 analysis has to focus. So --
4ak"
Not now. When you have your O opportunity.
Mr. Scarola.
MR. LINK: Champing at AS ), Your Honor.
(MR. SCAROLA:) (that it is unavoidable that the 1.1ryjm) [informed as to`what the non-prosecution) (agreement isj It would be our intention to) enter itAnto evidence. (They need to) (understand what the Crime Victims' Rights) What they don't need to do is to esolve the legitimacy of 40 other plaintiffs' claims.
Now, some of Mr. Epstein's (sic) clients -- in fact, I think all three of them -- are identified in the non-prosecution agreement. So Mr. Epstein,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as part of the non-prosecution agreement, agrees to compensate each of these 40 people under specific circumstances. And that gets us into a discussion as to why the federal lawsuit was filed. And this is something that we have referenced briefly in argument before Your Honor earlier. But
THE COURT: I want to stay on thisO subject for just a moment, if I coul that is, tell me why you belie t the motivation that Mr. Epstein e had to file this suit was rela or is related to this Jane Doe mov unseal the NPA. Explain that to ain, please.
MR. S es, sir.
I thin t t, obviously, motive can only be en through circumstantial nce if the defendant is not confessing. not only is Mr. Epstein not confessing, e's refusing to give considerable relevant testimony because of his assertion of both the attorney-client privilege in the absence of any assertion of advice of counsel defense, as we have already established, and his Fifth Amendment privilege. So we need
to prove what his motive is circumstantially.
(And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that)
Mr. is lead counsel in this Crime (Victims' Rights Act case.) (He clearly knows,) (because he's a participant in that case.) ED (has intervened in the case. He knows that (the consequences of that Crime Victims') (RiAghts Act case could be that he\_los s the (immunity that he negotiated wit' th U.S.) (Attorney's Office.)
So being able to p r aside as the primar ov force in the Crime Victims' ct case is obviously a reasonable cclu ion from those C circumstanc . But it goes beyond that, because ct threats were made to ds by Jeffrey Epstein.
0 THE COURT: So the suggestion, I guess, "lefrom - the defense, the malicious prosecution claim of Mr. Epstein is that he found it necessary to file the lawsuit -- strike that.
Yeah. He found it necessary to file the lawsuit against Rothstein, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collateral to the summary judgment -- the summary judgment motion was made and then not challenged. For those reasons, I'm going to sustain the objection at this time, again, subject to context for being able to readdress it, if necessary.
MR. SCAROLA: Number four is sustainej
THE COURT: Yes, sir, for the reas stated in the record.
MR. SCAROLA: Understood.
THE COURT: The NPA, I Acyt ASI.)ready)
V (indicated that the incli blob- would be --)
(if properly predicated -- would be allowed).
on tt complainants don't see an w t would be the grounds for objecti that? The Jane Doe,
: I'm not sure what the MS ance is. I'm not the proponent of the ence, but I don't see what relevance here would be of Jane Doe's complaint.
The relevance in this malicious prosecution action might be the allegations of this complaint, this action. But when we start bringing in other complaints as exhibits for a jury to read, I think that
NOT A CERTIFIED COPY
Dexter Lee, AUSA, and Ann C. Villafana, AUSA
JANE DOE, ) Case No.
) 08-80736-CIV-MARRA
Petitioner, )
)
-v- )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,) 46;f'
)
Respondent. ) West Palm Beach da ) August 14, 20
)
BEFORE THE HONO RANIL
U.S. JUDGE
C
FOR THE PETITIONE J. , ESQ., and Paul G. Cassell, ESQ.
FOR THE RABI>OND NT \
Ca2)
Re Stephen W. Franklin, RMR, CRR, CPE (56 514-3768 Official Court Reporter 701 Clematis Street, Suite 417 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
1 (Call to the order of the Court.) 2 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 3 VOICES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: All rig,ht. This is the case of In Re: 5 Jane Does I and 2, case number 08-80736-CIV-MARRA. 6 May I have counsel stale appearances, please, and 7 if you can please try and speak up so we can hear you. 8 MR. ISM Okay. Brad S on behalf of 9 Jane Doe I and 2. 10 MR. CASSELL: Paul Cassell, along with Mr. M. 11 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 12 MR. LEE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the 13 United States Government, Dexter Lee, Assistant U.S. 14 Attorney, and Villafana. 15 THE COURT: MI right Good afternoon. 16 Mr. -- everyone, we're having trouble hearing you, 17 so if you can try and speak up, and also if you could 18 idea yourself before you begin speaking so the reporter 19 can accurately indicate on the resold who is speaking. I 20 appreciate that. 21 I scheduled this for a status conference in order 22 to determine whether I'm going to need additional — as far 23 as the parties were concerned, whether either of the parties 24 thought that I needed additional information in order to 25 proceed with the pending motion by the Plaintiffs or wh
1 we have a complete record based upon what's 2 submitted, and I wasn't quite sure where we 3 since we last met. 4 So if I can hear from Mr. Edwards or Mr. 5 first what the Plaintiffs' position as far as where we stand 6 on the record in terms of whether I need additional facts, 7 evidence, or there's going to be a stipulation submitted to 8 me upon which I can rely. 9 MR. a Sure 10 Your Honor, this is Brad M. 11 I believe that you do have a sufficient record, in 12 that I don't think that I think that we're in agreement 13 that additional evidence does not need to be taken in the 14 case for Your Honor to make a ruling. We have actually met 15 with the U.S. Attorney, and we've had meaningful discussions 16 in an attempt to resolve our issues. I think the only issue, 17 we can probably agree to this right now, is that the victims 18 are unable at this point in time to go any further with 19 requesting a remedy from the Court without the full and 20 complete plea agreement being produced to us from the U.S. 21 Government, and the U.S. Government's hands are tied in that 22 there's a confidentiality agreement within that plea 23 agreement that prohibits them from turning that over. 24 So at this point in time, we would be asking Your 25 Honor to enter an order compelling them to turn over that PeeXls y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 agreement, and at that point in time I think we can meet again and probably resolve our disputes amongst ourselves. THE COURT: All right. So do I understand that you're modifying your claim for relief at this point and only seeking me to compel the Government to produce the plea agreement, or are you — or is this a a preliminary step, after which you're then going to evaluate whether you want me to do something fwther? MR. a I think it's the latter, Your Honor. It is, and it will likely always be, our position that the victims' rights are violated. However, becruse of iisregal (consequences of invalidating the =rent agreS ti not in my clients' best interest to ask for the relief) (that we initially asked for) So in order to eff ve te the situation and ask for the appropn, we would just be asking Your Honor at this point inibiie to allow us to see the full entire plea agreement that is purportedly drafted to protect my victims. That only seems fair to know, you know, what the plea agi =Anent says, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Epstein knows what the plea agreement says. THE COURT: All right. And then if I grant that f, you will evaluate the agreement and then decide er to either dismiss your case or go forward and ask for additional relief?
1 MR. a (That's correct,Your Honor! 2 THE COURT: Is it your plan or is there any kind 3 of — been any kind of disencsion between you and the 4 Government as to what you — if I grant the relief of 5 requiring the Government to at least present you with the 6 agreement and let you view it, has there been any discussion 7 about you keeping it confidential and not letting it go any 8 further than your clients and using it for your 9 decision-making purposes, or do you wish to have it released 10 to you, and you would be able to use it however you wished? 11 MR. a Well, Your Honor, we would prefer 12 that it be produced to us and not have to keep it 13 confidential. I think that that creates an undue hardship on 14 us. However, if it was Your Honor's order that we do 15 maintain some confidentiality of the agreement, we would 16 certainly abide by it. 17 The reason we want it is not so that ifs 18 disseminated everywhere; however, there is a public interest 19 in viewing what happens in the court process, and this is 20 just part of it. There's no reason that it should be sealed 21 or kept confidential. Seems to be an overwhelming reason 22 to - to make it public. However, that's not our intention. 23 Our intention is just to view it, represent my clients and 24 then evaluate it and ask the Court for the appropriate relief 25 after we've seen it.