Draft: efta02775333

•** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY. FL SHARON R BOCK. CLERK¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

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

SC ROTHSTEIN individually, CASE NO.: 502009CA040800X X XXMBAG and J. individually. JUDGE:¶

Defendants.¶

"MOTION" TO DETERMINE STATUS OF PUNITIVE PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.530 of the Plot<ida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this written response to Defend ter-Plaintiff ("_") "Motion"' to Determine Status 'ye Damages Discovery, and states:¶

On February 22, 2013, Epstei his responses to Net Worth Interrogatories and Request for P u n. On February 25, 2013, filed a Motion to Fin t (te Strike Untimely Objections al Discovery. In that Motion, moved to strike all objections and privileges raised by Epstein except his Constitutional Privilege against Self Incrimination. On March 11, 2013, this Court entered its Order on Motion in which it overruled all objections other than privilege. In that Order, this Court explicitly, and correct! led that Epstein shall not file a privilege log as to any documents he contends are Constitutionally Privileged. did not, and has not, challenged that portion of this Court's Order.¶

Subsequently, the Court entered an Order on May 17, 2013, in which it compelled Epstein to create a privilege log as to all items/answers for which he asserted privileges. In¶

^' This "Motion" is set on the Court's UMC for November 14,2013, but as of this date no Motion has been filed.¶

response thereto, Epstein filed a Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration as to this Order, which this Court denied on June 17, 2013, hut in so doing specifically avowed that¶

Because the Counter-Plaintiff has expressly limited his own objections to the Counter-Defendant's assertion of non-constitutional claims of privilege, this Court will not rule on the Counter-Defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege even though many of the requested documents appear to belong to corporations which do not possess Fifth Amendment rights. Accordingly, it is here by ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Counter-Defendant's Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration of this Court's Order Dated May 17, 2013 is DENIED. This Court will proceed with the in camera review, as previously delineated under the Second Discovery Order, and will rule upon all of the Counter-Defendant's asserted non-constitutional claims of privileges, both for interrogatories and document production, after the in camera review is complete.¶

Order dated June 17, 2013 (emphasis added). A true and correct copy of this Order is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." After receipt of the June 17, 2013 Order, on July 9, 2013, Epstein filed Amended Responses to Net Worth Interrogatories and Request for Production, in which he deleted all non-constitutional privilege assertions and only asserted his Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination; the only one to which did not object and for which Epstein was / not required by this Court's Order to produce anything for an in camera inspection. True and correct copies of the Amended Responses are attached hereto as composite "Exhibit B."¶

Finally, on September 16, 2013, while the parties were present on another issue, this Court inquired as to whether or not there was any outstanding issue regarding this discovery, and the following transpired:¶

MS. COLEMAN: No, your order said that you 10 needed to be able to rule on the other 11 non-fifth amendment privilege which we raised. 12 Every other privilege we raised has now been 13 withdrawn and all the discovery has been 14 amended. Anywhere we asserted a privilege, we
¶

15 asserted the Fifth along with other privileges.
16 All the other privileges were taken out. So
17 it's only the Fifth Amendment. So there's
18 nothing to review.¶

MS. COLEMAN: If you would like us to
24 do –¶

25 THE COURT: No, I never asked for
1 in-camera inspection if I don't need to do one.
2 I'm just asking what it is I need to do that I
3 haven't done in regards to the privilege log in
4 regard to Mr. Epstein. We're just dealing with
5 this.¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: I will accept Ms. Coleman's
7 representation on the record that all of the
8 discovery that has been withheld has been
9 withheld solely on the basis of the Fifth
10 Amendment privilege.¶

MS. COLEMAN: No, Judge. The answer it's
14 all net-worth discovery. The discovery that
15 was at issue is the net-worth discovery for the
16 punitive damages.¶

17 THE COURT: This is probably unfair to you
18 guys. I'm asking questions because it concerns
19 me if there's something out there I'm supposed
20 to be ruling on and I might have to do that.
21 Is there something pending on me that I'm
22 supposed to rule on?¶

23 MR. SCAROLA: Not if the only privilege
24 that's being asserted is a Fifth Amendment
25 privilege.¶

A true and correct copy of the transcript is attached hereto as "Exhibit C."¶

Accordingly, all punitive damages (net worth) discovery has been completely answered by Epstein, and the only privilege asserted by Epstein was his Constitutional, Fifth Amendment Privilege, to which [REDACTED] has not objected and upon which this Court has repeatedly stated it would not inquire.¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties listed below, via Electronic Service, this November 7, 2013.¶

/s/ Tonia Haddad Coleman¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq.¶

Fla. Bar No.: 0176737¶

TONJA HADDAD, PA¶

315 SE 7111Street¶

Suite 301¶

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301¶

954.467.1223¶

954.337.3716 (facsimile) 4,_)¶

Tonja@tonjahaddad.vt ¶

Electronic Service List¶

Jack Scarola, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola et al.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
_ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com
eservice@SearcyLaw.com ¶

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

Marc Nurik, Esq.
1 East Broward Blvd.
Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
marc@nuriklaw.com ¶

J. [REDACTED], Esq.
[REDACTED] Jaffe Weissing [REDACTED] Fistos Lehrman
425 N Andrews Avenue
Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
staff.efile@pathtojustice.com ¶

Fred Haddad, Esq.
1 Financial Plaza
Suite 2612
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com ¶

W. Chester [REDACTED], Jr.
One Clearlake Center
Suite 1400
250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
wcblaw@aol.com; wcbcg@aol.com ¶

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

CASE NO.: 50-2009-CA-040800-XXXX JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CIVIL DIVISION "AG"¶

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant.¶

v.¶

"MEM d isa' SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually, individually, and L.M., individually.¶

Defendant(s) and Counter-Plaintiff(s).¶

ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEF NT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION/REC I RATION¶

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plain ' / -Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's (the ' ta' "Counter-Defendant") Motion for Clarification/Re s irkt* ,rat on of this Court's Order Dated May 17, 2013. filed on May 28, 2013. This Court, ha hea argument on the motion and having carefully reviewed the Counter-Defendant's obj all applicable legal authority, and being otherwise terminc as follows: fully advised in the premises doeC r)¶

BACKGROUND¶

Court entered an Order (the "First Discovery Order") requiring the On March 11, 201 Counter-Defendattf de a detailed privilege log in response to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff ter-Plaintiff'} Request for Production and Net Worth Interrogatories. The Order stated ounter-Defendant was not required to list any documents on the privilege lug that he asserted were protected by his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The Counter-Defendant responded to this Court's Order by filing a privilege log wherein he asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to essentially every document request and interrogatory. as well as asserting that many documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. accountant-client privilege, trade secret privilege. work product privilege. and third party privacy¶

rights.¶

The Counter-Defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege claims were based upon the assertion that the identification and certification of the existence of certain documents would be selfincriminating. Because of the Counter-Defendant's assertion that he could not identify the requested documents, the Counter-Defendant did not provide to this Court a basis upon which to substantiate his non-constitutional claims of privilege. On April 15. 2013. the Counter-PI 'ntt filed his Response to the Counter-Defendant's Objections to the Counter-Plaintiffs Re for roduction and Net Worth interrogatories wherein he requested that this Court requi a ' liege log for an in camera review to determine whether the Counter-Defendant's privilege were valid. stitutional claims of¶

This Court entered an order on May 17. 20 l 3 (tOr• Counter-Defendant to provide to the Court. in c Counter-Defendant's asserted privileges. Motion for Clarification/Fteconsideraf 28, 2013. Discovery Order) requiring the 'lege log that provided a basis for the ore the Court is the Counter-Defendant's response to the Second Discovery Order on May¶

ANALYSIS AND RULING¶

In response to thi s Second Discovery Order requiring the Counter-Defendant to provide, for an in ra review. a privilege log substantiating his claims of attorney-client privilege. accountant li liege, trade secret privilege, work product privilege. and third party privacy rights, t er-Defendant argues the following: (A) the Counter-Plaintiff has not requested this Court rule on Fifth Amendment privilege and this Court's Second Discovery Order is in conflict with the First Discovery Order. (B) the Court's Second Discovery Order was confusing with respect to interrogatories. and (C) this Court's Second Discovery Order requiring the production of a privilege lug will cause the Counter-Defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. Accordingly. each of the Counter-Defendant's arguments is considered in turn.¶

A. The Counter-Plaintiff has not Requested this Court Rule on Fifth Amendment Privilege and this Court's Second Discovery Order is in Conflict with the First Discovery Order.¶

The Counter-Defendant argues that the Counter-Plaintiff has not objected to the Counter-Defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege and, as a result, this Court should not require a privilege log substantiating the Counter-Defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege. The Counter-Defendant also argues that this Court's First Discovery Order, which didn A require the Counter-Defendant to create a privilege log for any document he asserted was ecte ndcr the Fifth Amendment, conflicts with this Court's Second Discovery Order, whi the Counter-Defendant to file a privilege log with the Court for an in camera ins •etto t substantiated all assertions of privilege.¶

Counter-Defendant's assertion of non-constitution i s As discussed in the Second Discovery Order, th it o Plaintiff has objected to the /$4sv in his Response to Epstein's Objections to M' Request for Product Worth Interrogatories. filed on April IS. 2013. Further, the Counter-Plaintiff has that this Court rule on all of the Counter-Defendant's asserted non-constitute ges through a motion filed on April 8, 2013. The Counter-Defendant has assert that cannot provide a privilege log to substantiate his nonconstitutional assertion f privi because the identification of documents necessary for substantiation woul iolat is Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, the Counter-P1 ' h quested. and this Court has ordered, that the Counter-Defendant provide a privilege I t c5 Court for an in camera inspection so that this Court can rule on the Counter-Defendant scrtion of non-constitutional privileges.¶

8. This Court's Second Discovery Order was Confusing .Nith Respect to Interrogatories.¶

While this Court's Second Discovery Order contained a brief analysis of the law applicable to the Counter-Defendant s interrogatory objections, which was substantially related to the law relevant to the Counter-Defendant's other objections, the Second Discovery. Order contained no rulings as to interrogatories. This Court will rule on the non-constitutional assertions of privilege by the Counter-Defendant with respect to interrogatories after conducting an in camera review.¶

C. This Court's Second Discovery Order Requiring the Production of a Privilege Log will Cause the Counter-Defendant to Waive his Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.¶

Although the Counter-Defendant argues that this Court's Second Discovery Order will cause the Counter-Defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-inc Counter-Defendant fails to cite any authority that holds a court-ordered in cam individual to waive Filth Amendment privilege. In his motion, the Coun address any of the authority cited in the Second Discovery Order that does not cause an individual to waive Fifth Amendment rights, ation, the iew causes an ant also fails to an in camera review¶

"The court ordered in camera review will pre; disclosure to the State. The review process wil Amendment rights of due process and prat r. State. 100 So. 3d 213, 219 (Fla. 3d DC rivileged materials from nt (the respondent's Fifth t self-incrimination."¶

"ft is the duty of this court inviolate. We therefore mu camera inspection to pre 689 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. at (Fifth Amendment) protections are held order and direct the trial court to conduct an in y tolation of the privilege." Callon v. Capital Bank. A 1995).¶

of privilege is asserted, the trial court should hold an in camera w the discovery requested and determine whether assertion of the lid." Austin v. Barnett Bank, 472 So. 2d 830, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) an order to compel in the context of the Florida Rules of Civil¶

"The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself—his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified." Hoffman r. tinned Santa. 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).¶

Instead of addressing the above-referenced case law in this Court's Second Discovery Order. the Counter-Defendant ci►es to a variety of trial court cases that found, as a matter of case-specific¶

fact, that Fifth Amendment objections to the production of documents were valid. This Court has not ruled on the Counter-Defendant's Fifth Amendment objections. The purpose of this Court's Second Discovery Order was to obtain the necessary information in camera so this Court can rule. Because the Counter-Plaintiff has expressly limited his own objections to the Counter-Defendant's assertion of non-constitutional claims of privilege, this Court will not rule on the Counter-Defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege even though many of the requested docu n appear to belong to corporations which do not possess Fifth Amendment rights. According is hereby ORDERED sod ADJUDGED that the Counter-Deciso Motion fur¶

Clarification/Reconsideration of this Court's Order Dated May 17, 20 ENIED. This Court will proceed with the in camera review, as previously delinea the Second Discovery Order. and will rule upon all of the Counter-Defendant's asse d nstitutional claims of privileges. both for interrogatories and document production, a in am w is complete.¶

DONE sod ORDERED in each County. rida this day of June. 2013.¶

Copies furnished to: See attached service list. DAVID¶

SERVICE.LIST¶

CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

Jack Scarola. Esq. Searcy Denney Scamla 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 Fon Lauderdale. FL 33301¶

• J. E Jane WeissingsiM Fistos Le 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 44)¶

Fred Haddad. Esq. 1 Financial Plaza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderdale, PL Is '301r¶

Tonja Hadda41Cole . Esq. Tonja Ha 315 S.E Suite 0 le, Florida 33301 JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

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

vs.¶

SCOTT ROTHS IN individually, CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG and J. individually. JUDGE:¶

Defendants.¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Er '3, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure hereby files his amended responses to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Edward's Net Worth Interrogatories to Jeffrey Epstein:¶

What is your full name?

ANSWER: Jeffrey Edward Epstein¶

How are you currently employed?

ANSWER: Self-employed and Philanthropist.¶

State the amount of your current annual income from all sources for each of the past 3 years and describe all additional benefits received by you or payable to you for each of the past 3 years including bonuses, allowances, pension and profit sharing participations, options, deferred compensation, insurance benefits and other prerequisites of your employment including dollar amount or dollar value of each.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States. 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

If you own or have any beneficial interest in any stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other securities of any class in any government, governmental organization, company, firm or corporation, whether foreign or domestic, please state:

a. The name and address of the entity in which you own or have any beneficial property or security interest of any sort;
b. The date and cost of acquisition;
c. The current fair market value of each such interest;
d. The manner in which such value was calculated.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). 1 have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

As to each income tax return filed by you or on your behalf with any taxing authority for the years 2009 through 2012, identify as specifically as identified in your tax return the source of all reported imam e and the separate amounts derived from each source.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which conununicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

For each parcel of real property in which you hold any interest: state:

a. The address;
b. The legal description of the property;
c. The assessed value of the property for tax purposes;
d. The date and price of acquisition;
e. Whether, when, by whom, why and at what amount the property has been appraised since the time of purchase;
f. Whether, when and at what price the property has been offered for sale since the time of purchase;
g. The name and address of each real estate agent with whom the property has been listed for sale since the time of purchase;
h. The cost of any improvements made to the property since purchase;
i. The nature of your interest in the property;
j. The current fair market value of the property and tilloscription of the manner in which that value was calculated. '-a.J

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the on of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. F7s United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). 1 have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

1. List each itcm and state the estimated value of all personal tangible, and intangible property in which you have an interest which personal property was acquired at a cost in excess of S10,000 or which personal property has an estimated present value in excess of $10,000, and as to each stale:
a. The date of acquisition; e cost of acquisition; The current estimated fair market value;
d. The manner in which the fair market value was estimated.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

If any of the real or personal property owned by you, either individually, jointly or otherwise, is encumbered by a real estate mortgage, chattel mortgage, or any other type of lien, then for each property, state a description of the nature and amount of the encumbrance, the date the encumbrance arose, whether the encumbrance is evidenced by any written document and, if so, a description of that document.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

1. If you have an ownership interest in any bust &each business state:
- a. The name and address of the business;
- b. The present book value and elresent market value of your interest in the business, and its percentage of the total value of the business;
- c. A description of the manner in which the fair market value was calculated.

Answer: Objection. Thi ss'trogato ry requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that arc testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

erest or entify all banks, credit union and savings and loan accounts, in which you have an right of withdrawal and for each account state:
- a. Where the account is located;
- b. The highest and lowest balance in the account during the 365 day period immediately preceding your receipt of these interrogatories.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S.¶

391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoflinan v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Identify all other assets of a value in access of $10,000 which assets were not previously identified and as to each state:

a. The date of acquisition;
b. The cost of acquisition;
c. The current estimated fair market value;
d. The means utilized to estimate the currentanket value.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating s imfinancial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth ent rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Identify all other liabilities of an amount in excess of $10,000 not previously identified and as to each state:

a. The date the liability arise; eThe amount of the liability at inception; The terms of repayment or satisfaction;
d. The current outstanding balance.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

As to any calculation or estimate of your net worth at any time in the five years immediately preceding your receipt of these interrogatories, state:

a. The date of the calculation or estimate;
b. The name and address of the person or entity responsible for performing the work;
c. The reason for performing the calculation or estimate;
d. The amount of net worth calculated or estimated.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffinan v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

What is your present net worth?

Answer: I have already indicated my willingness to stipulate to a net worth in excess of one hundred million dollars.¶

As to all transfers of anything of a value in excess of $10,000 made by you or on your behalf within the past 5 years, state:

a. A description of the transferred property; 'hie reason for the transfer; C The value of the item(s) transferred at the time of transfer;
d. 'The date and cost of your acquisition of the item(s);
e. Whether you received anything of value in exchange for the transferred item(s) and, if so, a description of what you received and the dollar value of what you received;
f. The name and address of the recipient of each transferred item.

Answer: Objection. This Interrogatory requires the provision of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

[THIS PORTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff,¶

vs.¶

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

SC TEiN individually, CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG and individually. JUDGE:¶

Defendants.¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT PONSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT (PUNITIVE DAMAGESk¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this amended response to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Edward's Request for Production to Counter-Defendant (Punitive Damages), and answers as follows:¶

Please produce all Financial Statements prepared for or submitted to any Lender or Investor for the past five (5) years by you personally or on your behalf or on behalf of any entity in which you hold a controlling interest.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "IT]he act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell. 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Please produce the W-2's and any other documents reflecting any income (including salary, bonuses, profit distributions, and any other form of income), including all gross and net revenue received by you directly or indirectly for the past five (5) years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher¶

v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All tax returns filed with any taxing entity during the past five (5) years by you or on your behalf, or on behalf of any entity in which you hold or held a controlling interest at the time of filing.

ANSWER: Copies of my personal Individual Income Tax Returns on Form 1040 for the years 2010 and 2011 were provided with our prior response.¶

All bank statements or other financial statements which were prepared by or received by you, or on your behalf or by or on behalf of any entity in which you had an ownership interest of 10% or more at any time during the past five (5) years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All financial statements which were prepared by you or on your behalf, or by or on behalf of any entity in which you held an ownership interest of 10% or more at any time during the past five (5) years.

questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

The deeds and titles to all real property owned by you or held on your behalf either directly or indirectly at any time during the past five (5) years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "[T]he act of production itself" may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All passbooks with respect to savings accounts, checking accounts and savings and loan association share accounts owned by you or on which you hold a right or have a held a right to withdraw funds at any time during the past five years.

All passbooks with respect to all savings accounts, checking accounts and savings loan association share accounts, owned by you in whole or in part jointly as co-partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or owned by an entity in which you have or have had a controlling interest at any time during the past 5 years.

and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

The most recent bank ledger sheets in your possession, or accessible by you on the internet, with respect to all bank accounts in which you have a right to withdraw funds.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "[T]he act of production itself" may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

The most recent bank ledger sheets in your possession, or accessible by you on the internet, with respect to all bank accounts owned by you solely, or jointly as co-partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or owned by any entity to which you have a controlling interest.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "[T]he act of production itself" may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All checkbooks for all accounts on which you were authorized to withdraw funds in the past five (5) years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "[T]he act of production itself" may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth¶

and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

1. All corporate securities (stocks or bonds) owned by you, directly or indirectly.

ANSWER: This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "'[T]he act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

1. The latest available balance sheets and other financiatstatements with respect to any and all business enterprises of whatever nature in which you possess any ownership interest of 10% or more, whether as partner, joint venture, stockholder, or otherwise.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). ."[T]he act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth AmenSeft rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

1. Your accounts receivable ledger or other company records which sets forth the names and addresses of all persons or business enterprises that are indebted to you and the amounts and terms of such indebtedness.

ANSWItitjection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "'Mlle act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Copies of the partnership or corporate Income Tax Returns for any partnership or corporation in which you do possess or have possessed any ownership interest of 10% or more whether as partner, joint venture, stockholder or otherwise, for the last five (5) years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "`[T]he act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that axe testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

The title certificates, registration certificates, bills of sale, and other evidences of ownership possessed by you or held for your beneficial interest with respect to any of the following described property owned by you or hgld directly or indirectly for your beneficial interest:

a. Motor vehicles of any type;
b. Commercial, business or construction es ent of any type; and
c. Boats, launches, cruisers, planes, or othti essels of any type.

ANSWER: Objection. This Requeetts Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial info on which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). "` [T]he act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern dial these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffinan v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All records pertaining to the transfer of any money or property interests or financial interests made by you in the past 5 years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). 4" [Tjhe act of production itself may implicitly communicate "statements of fact" that arc testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that arc testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a "link in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See¶

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Any and all memoranda and/or bills evidencing the amount and terms of all of your current debts and obligations.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All records indicating any and all income and benefits received by you from any and all sources for the past 5 years.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Copies of any and all brokerage account statements or securities owned by you individually, jointly with any person or entity or as trustee, guardian or custodian, for the past 5 years, including in such records date of purchase and amounts paid for such securities, and certificates of any such securities.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to¶

questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All records pertaining to the acquisition, transfer and sale of all securities by you or on your behalf for the past 5 years, such records to include any and all information relative to gains or losses realized from transactions involving such securities.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

All policies of insurance in which you or any entity controlled by you is the owner or beneficiary.

ANSWER: Objection. This Request for Production requires the identification of the existence of detailed financial information which communicates statements of fact. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). “[T]he act of production itself” may implicitly communicate “statements of fact” that are testimonial in nature. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). I have a substantial and reasonable basis for concern that these statements of fact that are testimonial in nature could reasonably furnish a “link in the chain of evidence” that could be used to prosecute me in future criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

Copies of any and all trust agreements in which you are the settlor or beneficiary together with such documents necessary and sufficient to identify the nature and current value of the trust res.

Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.¶

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all panics listed below, via Electronic Service, this July 9, 2013.¶

Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HADDAD, PA 315 SE 7 Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 (facsimile) Tonja@tonjahaddad.com
¶

,Electronic Service List¶

Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola CI al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 JSX@SearcyLaw.com MEP@Searcylaw.com ¶

CO¶

Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave. South Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA S West Palm Beach, FL 33401 jgoldberger@agwpa.com ¶

"S)C¶

Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 marc@nuriklaw.com ¶

425 N Andrews Avenue c Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33 staftefile@pathtojustice.com ¶

Fred Haddad, Esq: 'cr 1 Financial Play\ Suite 261 Fort Lauderdale FL 33301 Dee®FredHaddadLaw.com¶

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XxxxmBAG¶

3 4¶

6¶

5 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, :,¶

8 ⁹ 7. J, individually, IMPE!R, in ivi wally, 10¶

-vs-7 Plaintiff,¶

0¶

5:) 4¶

12¶

11 Defendants. (4&5::¶

13 HEARING HELDA4se E THE HONORABLE D¶

14¶

15¶

16 A-% monday,- September 16, 2013 17 - 3:30 p.m. - 4:05 p.m.¶

18 19¶

20 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶

21 22¶

Reported By: Pamela Pittman Gunn, FPR 25 Notary Public, state of Florida¶

1 APPEARANCES:¶

2 On behalf of the Plaintiff: Page 1 hrg091613epstein.txt¶

3 TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQ.¶

TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 4 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 5 Phone: 954.467.1223 tonja@tonjahadaddad.com 6¶

7 on behalf of the Defendant J.¶

8 JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & 9 SHIPLEY. P.A. 10 west Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: 561.686.6300 11 jsx@searcylaw.com ¶

12¶

13¶

CO 'S¶

16 S 4)9¶

14¶

15¶

i¶

17¶

18¶

21¶

r¶

19¶

20¶

22¶

23¶

24¶

25 6S ellS ilir¶

PROCEEDINGS¶

2¶

3 Hearing taken before Pamela Pittman Gunn, court¶

4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 5 Florida at Large, in the above cause.¶

6¶

hrg091613epstein.txt 7 THE COURT: okay, this is the Epstein 8 versus Rothstein case. It's the plaintiff 9 excuse me, counter plaintiff's motion to 10 determine entitlement to adverse inferences and 11 also prohibit the induction of evidence. I 12 read the response. I read the motion and 13 response. Counsel just hand delivered 15 never seen before. It was a supplement 16 memorandum I received. al 14 something to me today that evidentially I have¶

17 MS. COLEMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Scar 18 filed it at 10:30 this morning. I haven't had 19 a chance to review it. I was in court on 20 another matter. I haven't reviewed it either.¶

21 22 we begin so I get my perspective back again. I 23 entered an order some time ago in this case and 24 I guess deali g with some of the privileged 25 objectionS 'all recall that? THE COURT: Let me ask a question before¶

1 OLEMAN: Yes.¶

2 3 0 44 h HE COURT: And I think 1 asked for some S k d of privilege log. Is there anything I'm supposed be doing or is that on appeal?¶

7 MR. sCAROLA: I believe there are outstanding privileges as you said, Your Honor, that is still not yet determined.¶

8 9 10 THE COURT: okay, because I didn't know that. I thought I was waiting for something from you guys.¶

11 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think so. Page 3¶

12 THE COURT: I'm going to have to have a 13 status conference and figure everything because 14 I went back and looked at it and something's 15 wrong. okay. Good enough.¶

16 MR. SCAROLA: To put that in context, your 17 Honor.¶

18 THE COURT: what is that,¶

19 MS. COLEMAN: I'm sorry?¶

20 THE COURT: what did you say?¶

21 MS. COLEMAN: Nothing, Judge. I s 22 speaking I was just coming up to be rt)of 23 it.¶

24 THE COURT: Go ahead.¶

25 MR. SCAROLA: vour Honor may recall that¶

1 2 3 4 there have been multiple privileges asserted with regard to a variety of issues. And we Lb. have ove the course of these proceedings been attempti t9) narrow valid privileged 5 ass ns and distinguish them from invalid 6 rive eged assertions. That primarily means 7 hat while we have acknowledged that Mr. Epstein has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege because he does clearly remain in jeopardy with regard to the underlying criminal 11 activity that resulted in both a state 12 prosecution and a Federal non-prosecution 13 agreement.¶

14 we believe that other privileges were 15 invalid. And the practical implications of¶

hrg091613epstein.txt 16 making that distinction are that we cannot draw 17 an adverse inference from the assertion of, for 18 example, an attorney/client privilege. But we 19 are under the case law clearly permitted to 20 draw an adverse inference from the assertion 21 of the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain 22 silent.¶

23 So we need to eliminate the invalid 24 assertion, assertions of privilege from our 25 perspective. Leave in place the valid¶

1 assertion of privilege, which then permits us 2 to draw an adverse from the valid assertions of 3 privilege. Your Honor has under consideration 4 some of those challenged privileged assertions. 5 That's by way of an answer to Your Honor's 6 question. It doesn't have anything to do with 7 today's motion.¶

8 Because today's motion relates only to 9 those circumstances where the only privilege 10 asserted by Mr. Epstein is a Fifth Amendment 11 ‹e' rivilege, his right to remain silent pursuant 12 t the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments 1 AIPIL of the US Constitution that have been 4c, repeatedly asserted by him throughout the 15 discovery in this case and in response to 16 request to production and in response to 17 interrogatories. And dozens and dozens and 18 dozens of times in response to questions posed 19 during the course of his deposition.¶

20 what we are seeking today, by way of what page S¶

21 really is a motion in limine is, in fact, a 22 determination that where the only privilege 23 asserted by mr. Epstein is, the only valid 24 privilege asserted by Mr. Epstein, is a Fifth 25 Amendment privilege assertion. That we are¶

1 entitled 2 the jury that the assertion of that priyil 3 allows them to draw an adverse inferenc 4 is that had an answer been given, those ins ers 5 would be unfavorable to Mr. Epstein. we have 6 not laid out the precise wording of, that jury 7 instruction and if that's ecevary at this 8 point. But we are si king for a 9 confirmation of th si rincipal. to a jury instruction that will info rO4Rv¶

10 The second t o this motion is that as 11 to those matters to which Mr. Epstein has 12 over the course of four years that, almost four 13 years that this case has been prosecuted, 14 consistently asserted a Fifth Amendment 15 privilege. He is not going to be able to get 16 up there during the course of trial and change 17 his position and suddenly begin testifying 18 about matters in which he has consistently 19 refused to provide information in pretrial 20 discovery.¶

21 So those are two parts. That's what we're 22 asking for. we don't want to be surprised by 23 Mr. Epstein coming and attempting to take the 24 witness stand and to give testimony that he has 1 THE COURT: Is this matter set for trial?¶

2 MR. SCAROLA: We are set for trial, yes, 3 sir. We're getting to the point now where --¶

4 THE COURT: When is it set?¶

5 MS. COLEMAN: we're on calendar call, 6 Judge, October 18 for the trial commencing 7 October 28th.¶

8 THE COURT: Yeah, that sounds rig¶

9 okay.¶

10 MR. SCAROLA: Now the prittip Jesponse 11 '. that we have gotten to this motion,is that the 12 Baxter (phonetics) case, which we have cited in 13 support of our position is a case that arose in 14 a context where an individual took the witness 15 stand and asserted his Fifth Amendment 16 privilege in the presence of the jury.¶

17 And the contention in the 18 counter-defendant's response is we would be 19 required to call Mr. Epstein to the witness 20 stand. He would be obliged to assert his Fifth 21 ll ndment privilege in the presence of the jury before we would be entitled to any adverse implication instruction. That simply is wrong. 24 And it's wrong because Rule 1.330(a) renders 25 that distinction meaningless. Rule 1.330(a) is¶

1 the rule of civil procedure that talks about¶

2 the use of depositions at trial. And it Page 7¶

3 provides expressly that at trial a deposition 4 may be used, in this case, against an opposing 5 party as though the witness were then present 6 and testified.¶

7 So we already have the basis upon which to 8 draw the adverse inference. It isn't necessary 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 that either we or Mr. Epstein -- call mr. Epstein to the witness stand and have him repeat what he has already consistently sai and that is that he refuses to answer t4Ese questions. so the distinction that the attempt to draw that this is procedurally premature because he has not t a en the stand in front of the jury a red moot by virtue of Florida Rule d 0 ivi Procedure which requires that ;4s 0osition testimony be treated in the same~mannlier as trial testimony would be. Tft)Airically our position, Your Honor.¶

22 THE 1R : Okay. Yes.¶

23 24 25 COLEMAN: Good afternoon, Judge. To dre s the issues with which Mr. scarola has S "scussed I would point out the following to¶

("<d1¶

10¶

the Court. First, this motion is premature at 2 best for several reasons. First of which is 3 Mr. Epstein is now set for deposition by 4 counter plaintiff on October 21st and I presume 5 will be asked further questions to which he may 6 or may not assert the Fifth Amendment. So to¶

hrg091613epstein.txt 7 preemptively presume that he will assert it or 8 not assert it and make a ruling based on an 9 adverse inference on something that hasn't yet 10 happened is inapplicable.¶

11 Second, )udge, with respect to discovery 12 that has gone on in this case over the past 13 four years there are many, many, many questions 14 sadly which are not spelled out in the bulk of 15 this motion. Questions that have been poseP 16 Mr. Epstein that irrefutably have absolu 17 nothing to do with this case. All that 18 evident from everything that has iled in 19 this case, that the parties, t 20 plaintiff, would like to re t ate the cases 21 that were being prosecut m against 22 Mr. Epstein several ye; tLa . This is a 23 simple abuse of process and malicious 24 prosecution c e, judge. so with respect to 25 the negati adverse inference to which¶

11¶

1 counthlaintiff may or may not be entitled, 2 his Court needs to conduct a far more detailed 0 3 analysis into those questions and answers other than the blanket assertion made by this motion.¶

)udge, for example, to be entitled to a negative inference, the party seeking it must 7 prove that the information cannot be benefited 8 or received from obtaining -- I'm sorry, let me 9 start that sentence over. The inference may 10 not be drawn unless there's a substantial need 11 for the information and there is not another Page 9¶

12 less burdensome way of obtaining that 13 information. That's the first step. And I 14 appreciate this is not fully -- this is like I 15 received their memo this morning and I was 16 under the misguided conception we were arguing 17 the two cases he cited but I will lay this out 18 for the Court anyway since we're here. The 19 court has discretion¶

AS A¶

20 MR. SCAROLA: I don't mean to interru 21 but that's all i have argued. I have 22 argued the supplemental memo at all.¶

23 m5. COLEMAN: The rule to which he 24 referred is not cited in his motion with 25 respect to the use of the, deposition. But what¶

12¶

1 this Court has to do before it can determine -- 2 THE COURT: Let me ask a basic question. 3 mS. COLEMAN: ves, you can. 4 THE COURT: There is bunch of cases where 5 someone has waived Fifth Amendment and it 6 happens all the time in DUI cases and then in 7 Civil lawsuits. I've never had anybody ask me for an actual jury instruction like you do in a spoliation case. what they do is they ask the question, the person denies it or -- excuse me, 11 they take the Fifth Amendment. And says 12 weren't you drunk on the night of the accident, 13 and they answer I refuse on the basis of 14 incrimination. Then they argue to the jury, he 15 admitted it and¶

hrg091613epstein.txt¶

16 MS. COLEMAN: That's exactly my point, 17 Judge.¶

18 THE COURT: I've never seen a case where 19 it says you're entitled to an actual 20 instruction. In the cases you cited, the two 21 cases cited, at least I didn't see that in the 22 case you cited. Is there actually a case in 23 Florida where if you take the Fifth Amendment, 24 you're entitled to an adverse inference 25 instruction like a spoliation case where.(`¶

13¶

1 there's specific instruction a roved y the 2 Fourth District?¶

3 MS. COLEMAN: It's 'on, 4 but -- Judge,¶

5 THE COURT: I i ' see anything like 6 that.¶

7 8 9 10 11 vailable, he's coming. He's listed on both 12 11 ness lists. He's the defendant. He'll be here. He'll be testifying. MS. COL either but again my said, all the cases No, I didn't see anything understanding is, as I to which counter plaintiff referred clearly states that the witness is¶

In every case that I've read, state and 15' Federal, indicates that it occurs at trial. we 16 don't know what questions are going to be 17 asked. we don't know what's going to happen.¶

18 THE COURT: The jury can draw an adverse 19 inference since nobody is pleading the Fifth 20 Amendment and --¶

21 MS. COLEMAN: Only if you base your 22 findings on a particular set of information 23 delineated. For example, should Mr. Epstein -- 24 I'm hypothetically speaking -- take the stand 25 and answer a question to which he's previously¶

1 asserted the Fifth, you can strike that answe 2 And then, and only then, would the issue 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 negative inference become applicable. point we respectfully feel the plaintif the cart before the horse becauseCeN not at trial. I don't think even Mr S rola can determine what evidence i ASig c, 0 come out at eel\S trial. I've never s a ry instruction drafted before dis ry even finished. He's taken Mr. ein deposition.¶

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 THE COURT:, ly time 1 have ever done - sorry to interrupt you. I've never given a written one in the context of the Fifth Amendment. It's always been in the context of / /discovery violations or failure to comply with iscovery requests or spoliation issues. And then we drafted instructions under -- I can't remember the name of the case.¶

MS. COLEMAN: It's Rule 1.380.¶

20 THE COURT: Actually, a case where you 21 approve a specific, it's not a presumption, 22 it's an inference. You give the presumption 23 it's irrelevant, not to say stupid, something 24 like that. I'm not really sure what you want¶

1 2 3 4 5 MR. SCAROLA: There are two things I want you to rule, Your Honor. I want you first to rule that Mr. Epstein will not be permitted to give testimony or to produce evidence that he, himself, has withheld as a consequence of his n A c 6 consistent assertion of the Fifth Amendment 7 privilege during the course of the four 8 that this matter has been in pretrial 9 discovery. He should not be permitIllyfter 10 having refused to give that evidence in 11 pretrial discovery, to ores evidence at 12 trial. That's part one.¶

13 Part two, we shoul elrntitled to an 14 instruction after we publish Mr. Epstein's 15 deposition testimony to the jury in which he 16 has refused to answer questions, that his 17 silence may be held against him.¶

18 Now I can't tell Your Honor that I have at 19 hand a Florida case that approves a specific 20 <" orm of instruction. But the law is quite 21 O c ar that we are entitled to jury instructions that support our theory of the case. And it is a proper statement of the law, that a statement 24 -- excuse me -- that an assertion of privilege 25 in the context of a civil case may be used by¶

1 2 the jury to draw an adverse inference, inference against the person who refuses to Page 13¶

3 testify.¶

4 Now the common experiences of jurors who 5 watch Tv and read magazines and read books is 6 that you may not hold an individual's right to 7 remain silent against him. Because jurors are 8 generally educated about such matters in the 9 context of criminal proceedings. So to 10 disabuse jurors who may believe that it is 11 improper to hold an assertion of Fifth 12 Amendment privilege against someone, we shou 13 be entitled to an instruction that sans at) 14 the law is.¶

15 And the law is that you ed hold 16 the assertion of the right'to in silent in 17 the context of a civil case against the person 18 who is making that assertion. There are very 19 strong statemen n su)port of that position 20 in the cases that have cited to Your Honor. 21 Including the United States supreme Court that 22 23 assertion of a right to remain silent in the 24 ntext of civil cases. has talked about the probative value of an¶

25 so it is on that basis that we are asking¶

the court to do those two things. Tell us 2 right now that since Mr. Epstein's refused to 3 give evidence pretrial, he's not going to be 4 permitted to recede from that. And secondly, 5 tell us that the jury will be informed of the 6 basic legal principle that the assertion of the¶

hrg091613epstein.txt 7 right to remain silent in the context of a 8 civil case can be used against the person 9 asserting that right to remain silent.¶

10 THE COURT: Okay, you get the last word.¶

11 MS. COLEMAN: Thank you, Judge. I was 12 unable to address section two or part two of 13 14 be precluded at offering certain evidence at 15 trial. First, Judge, I would submit that w 16 had filed weeks ago our trial exhibit li 17 witness list. And if there's specific Stems, 18 contained on our exhibit list in 19 Mr. scarola takes issue, he sh g it up 20 at the proper time and obje, which 21 we're required to do pursuant your court 22 order. If there is something listed on our 23 exhibit list that violates what he's asking 24 for, that's the proper time to raise it. Mr. Scarola's motion in which he asks that we¶

25 Furthermore, Judge, your order¶

18¶

1 specifically delineates, I believe in paragraph 2 that if we haven't provided it to opposing 3 11 c nsel, we can't use it. It's that simple. Obviously, if we tried to submit evidence that we have not provided to the plaintiff in this case, we wouldn't be permitted to use it.¶

7 THE COURT: SO there's a difference under 8 the Binger analysis. There's two different 9 things there. one I can -- certainly I don't 10 have to do singer analysis and the sanction. I 11 want to know what I haven't done, okay.¶

12 Because I've evidentially missed something 13 along the way. Because I entered an order 14 basically saying I required you to file 15 privilege logs which identify each document, 16 what the privilege is to that document and so I 17 can look at them and determine which ones more 18 I have to look at. I don't recall. Did I get 19 that?¶

20 MS. COLEMAN: No, what happened, Judge 21 what we did we amended our answers to -¶

22 THE COURT: I must be losing my min¶

23 MS. COLEMAN: we amended our answers to 24 all that discovery and only asserted the Fifth 25 Amendment to those that w were asserting a¶

1 privilege. So (e SI\ wa no other privilege 2 raised.¶

3 THE hat am I supposed to be 4 ruling on¶

5 NS. COLEMAN: Right now? His motion.¶

6 THE COURT: No. No, I thought -- again, 7 I'm sorry, guys I'm confused. I thought there was things out -- Mr. Scarola said there are things outstanding.¶

10 MS. COLEMAN: But there's still our issue 11 with the privilege log filed by Mr. 12 with respect to our discovery requests as well.¶

13 THE Copia: I'm talking about with regard 14 to Mr. Epstein. Is there anything I need to 15 rule on with him?¶

19¶

16 ms. COLEMAN: NO.¶

17 18 19 20 MR. SCAROLA: That wasn't my understanding but quite frankly, Your Honor, I didn't specifically review that for purposes of responding to that question.¶

21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I'm sorry for interrupting you. The only reason 1 did that is to prepare for today's hearing. I looked at the file and A one of the last things I did was that order entered on where 1 determined that I wil¶

C. )¶

1 require you to file the detailg iAeged log 2 so I can determine based on ~{!`` c ola's 3 argument on the Fifth Amendmen you can't get 4 but the other stuff, U know, can be 5 sanctionable. I th u I was kind of waiting 6 because I didn' nything. You're telling 7 me there i5. rivileged log out there or 8 there is pne th t I need to rule on?¶

9 MS. C MAN: NO, your order said that you 10 needed to be able to rule on the other 11 ‹,' n-fifth amendment privilege which we raised. 12 O E ry other privilege we raised has now been withdrawn and all the discovery has been amended. Anywhere we asserted a privilege, we 1S asserted the Fifth along with other privileges. 16 All the other privileges were taken out. So 17 it's only the Fifth Amendment. So there's 18 nothing to review.¶

19 THE COURT: some of the case law I read in 20 Federal court says even the Fifth Amendment Page 17¶

20¶

21 sometimes the court can look at in-camera to 22 determine if it's --¶

23 MS. COLEMAN: If you would like us to 24 do --¶

25 THE COURT: NO, I never asked for¶

1 in-camera inspection if I don't need to do o 2 I'm just asking what it is I need to do th 3 haven't done in regards to the privile 4 regard to Mr. Epstein. we're just deal ith 5 this.¶

6 MR. SCAROLA: I will acc Coleman's 7 8 9 withheld solely on bars of the Fifth 10 Amendment privi representation on the rec td all of the discovery that has beery he d has been¶

11 THE COUP 12 filed or re's been a privilege log¶

13 ms. tF AN: No. Judge. The answer it's 14 all net-worth discovery. The discovery that 15 was at issue is the net-worth discovery for the 16 <'\punitive damages.¶

17, THE COURT: This is probably unfair to you guys. I'm asking questions because it concerns me if there's something out there I'm supposed 20 to be ruling on and I might have to do that. 21 Is there something pending on me that I'm 22 supposed to rule on?¶

23 MR. SCAROLA: Not if the only privilege 24 that's being asserted is a Fifth Amendment¶

1 did talk about at the time of that last hearing 2 was that some of the financial information that 3 was requested was corporate financial 4 information. And you correctly observed a 5 corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege. 6 So I don't know -- Your Honor asks the 7 rhetorical question. I don't know how you 8 be asserting a Fifth Amendment privilegecyv i 9 regard to the corporate records.¶

10 THE COURT: It has to be telt al even 11 if it's an individual. I raelem what.¶

, -t\ 12 MR. SCAROLA: Correct. And those were the 13 concerns that Your Honor expressed. And it was 14 my understanding that that shifted the burden 15 back to the counter defendant to provide 16 something else to Your Honor with regard to 17 those litters. But I will repeat, if the 18 position of the counter defendant is that 19 everything that has been withheld in discovery 20 /has been withheld on the basis of the Fifth 21 - ( Amendment privilege, I'll accept that 1....) I representation.¶

THE COURT: I'm asking you. I don't want to get --¶

25 MS. COLEMAN: That is not what I said,¶

1 Judge.¶

2 THE COURT: Hang on. I'm going to set a Page 19¶

3 status conference. YOU guys can talk about 4 this. See what the status of discovery is at. 5 What I need you to do is i need that fairly 6 7 8 9 10 are you waiting for me to rule on - quickly. Probably next week or so you all are coming up on trial here. And see what I need to get done before you all walk into the courtroom. You said there's also stuff and so¶

11 MS. COLEMAN: Judge, you were taking 12 was quite a while back. That we had a 13 with respect to the privileged log file 14 mr. first from (inaudibl the, from 15 Jaffe. There is some documents that 16 were alleged by them to b -confidential, just 17 communications, such a 18 press and the gover t l,tat have not yet been 19 ruled on. The Ikd ing as supposed to be 20 continued. nication with the¶

21 THE CdtJRW4 don't recall. I have 22 nothing in here, at least that I know, that 23 hasn't been ruled on.¶

24 MS. COLEMAN: I'll refile the motion, 25 ^ Judge.¶

24¶

THE COURT: Or reschedule it or whatever. 2 i don't have any in-camera that I haven't done 3 so far.¶

4 MS. COLEMAN: If you're not making a 5 ruling right now on this motion, we would like 6 to be afforded the opportunity to respond to¶

hrg091613epstein.txt 7 the thirteen-page memorandum that Barnhart, 8 Scarola provided a couple of hours ago. 9 THE COURT: How quickly can you respond? 10 MS. COLEMAN: Judge, the hearing was set 11 -- he set this hearing on July 17th and it was 12 given to me today. A week? 13 THE COURT: You think you can do it a 14 little early? can you have it by Friday? 15 MS. COLEMAN: No, Judge, I have to be • 16 Tavernier and marathon on Thursday and Fri 17 THE COURT: Do you know who would IWO 18 be in the Keys? 19 MS. COLEMAN: Not on this dge. 20 21 I'm back here at 8:45 tomornissy ng in front of you again on th' 22 THE COURT: You 23 apologize, guys. 24 MS. COLEMA unfair for a five-day 25 requirement. joking.¶

C.)¶

1 MR. SCAROLA: I have no problem. 2 MS. COLEMAN: Five day. 3 THE COURT: Next week. How about next Monday, next Tuesday? MS. COLEMAN: Next Tuesday would be good. THE COURT: Next Tuesday by 5 p.m. Tell 7 you what I want you to do to make it easy. 8 call my JA or have someone call my JA and get 9 an address. You can e-mail, maybe emailing it 10 to me and the same to Mr. Scarola so I get it 11 on Tuesday. Can you do that? Page 21¶

25¶

12 MS. COLEMAN: Yes.¶

13 MR. SCAROLA: will it be necessary for me 14 to resubmit what I hand delivered?¶

15 THE COURT: No, I'll take what I got and 16 wait for her. Okay, I'll get an order out as 17 soon as I receive a response.¶

18 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much.¶

19 THE COURT: I want you guys to sit down 20 and talk about what you need to do. I'm g Sng 21 to schedule a conference to see what ne ds 22 be done. I got an easy feeling that th 23 need to be done before this Otto• Thank 24 you.¶

25 (The hearing was concl de :05 p.m.)¶

1¶

2¶

3 STATE OF FLORIDA"- 4 COUNTY OF PAL¶

5¶

6¶

11¶

12 and complete record of my transcription. hearing, pages 1-25; proceedings were held on September 16, 2013 and that the transcript is a true¶

13 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2013.¶

14¶

15¶

26¶

CER,ccperear#is. A T E¶

7 <4'4i, Pamela Pittman Gunn, Court Reporter, State orida at large, certify that I was authorized and did stenographically report the foregoing¶

rarsla Plttilall Gunn. Court Reporter¶

23 A¶

hrg091413epstein.txt¶

Keyboard shortcuts

Go to a page: `g` then

"MOTION" TO DETERMINE STATUS OF PUNITIVE PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO¶

Electronic Service List¶

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

ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEF NT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION/REC I RATION¶

BACKGROUND¶

ANALYSIS AND RULING¶

A. The Counter-Plaintiff has not Requested this Court Rule on Fifth Amendment Privilege and this Court's Second Discovery Order is in Conflict with the First Discovery Order.¶

8. This Court's Second Discovery Order was Confusing .Nith Respect to Interrogatories.¶

C. This Court's Second Discovery Order Requiring the Production of a Privilege Log will Cause the Counter-Defendant to Waive his Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.¶

SERVICE.LIST¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT PONSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT (PUNITIVE DAMAGESk¶

,Electronic Service List¶

PROCEEDINGS¶