📄 Extracted Text (28,502 words)
108
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,
BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME II
DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017
TIME: 10:01 a.m. - 4:43 p.m.
PLACE 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10C
West Palm Beach, Florida
BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Presiding Judge
This cause came on to be heard at the time and place
aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were
reported by:
Sonja D. Hall
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788219
109
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For Bradley Edwards:
3 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, P.A.
4 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
5 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE
By DAVID P. VITALE, JR.
6
7 For Bradley Edwards:
8 BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH PA
444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350
9 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
By PHILIP MEAD BURLINGTON, ESQUIRE
10
11 For Jeffrey Epstein:
12 W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A.
250 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 33401
13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
By W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A., ESQUIRE
14
15 For Jeffrey Epstein:
16 TONJA HADDAD, P.A.
315 S.E. 7th Street, Suite 301
17 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
By TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE
18
For Jeffrey Epstein:
19
ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
20 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
21 By JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
22 For Jeffrey Epstein:
23 DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC
575 Lexington Avenue
24 New York, NY 10022
By DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE
25
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788220
110
1 THE COURT: Have we settled upon the
2 next motion we would like to have heard?
3 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. We
4 will be proceeding -- Tonja Haddad Coleman
on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. We will be
6 proceeding with our motion to overrule
7 objections and compel Defendant/
8 Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' answer to
9 questions.
10 Judge, this motion is directed at
11 Mr. Edwards' deposition testimony and the
12 two depositions he provided in this case,
13 the first of which was March 23rd, 2010, the
14 second of which was May 15th, 2013, which is
15 why this motion was not heard, as this Court
16 likely remembers from before lunch. In June
17 2013, summary judgment was granted, so the
18 issues of the answers to the deposition
19 questions became moot while the case was on
20 appeal.
21 Did the Court find the motion?
22 THE COURT: Well, I have two similarly
23 titled motions here in front of me. One
24 says, Epstein's Motion to Overrule
25 Objections and Compel Defendant/
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788221
111
1 Counter-Plaintiff Edwards to answer
2 questions.
3 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, that's the
4 one.
5 THE COURT: Is that the one?
6 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge.
7 As this court is aware, the only thing
8 pending at this point in time in the case is
9 Mr. Edwards' claim of abuse of process
10 malicious prosecution against Mr. Epstein.
11 The abuse of process claim has been disposed
12 of. It was successfully won on the summary
13 judgment and is no longer an issue. So the
14 only operative portion of the Fourth Amended
15 Counterclaim is count two, malicious
16 prosecution.
17 In that complaint, Judge, against
18 Mr. Epstein, Mr. Edwards asserts in
19 paragraph 24, "While prosecuting legitimate
20 claims on behalf of his clients, Edwards has
21 not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or
22 improper conduct, nor has Edwards taken any
23 action inconsistent with the duty he has to
24 vigorously represent the interests of his
25 clients. Epstein has no reasonable basis to
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788222
112
1 believe otherwise, and never had any
2 reasonable basis to believe otherwise."
3 Then in paragraph 33, Edwards lists the
4 damages he suffered as a result of Epstein's
alleged wrongful conduct.
6 Judge, damages aren't an actual element
7 of the claim of malicious prosecution that
8 must be proven in this case. Injury to his
9 reputation, mental anguish, embarrassment
10 and anxiety, fear of physical injury to
11 himself and members of his family, the loss
12 of value of his time required to be diverted
13 from his professional responsibilities, the
14 cost of defending against Epstein's spurious
15 and baseless claims.
16 So as a result of those allegations,
17 Mr. Edwards was deposed. Within his
18 deposition -- nearly every section -- the
19 question was answered with an objection by
20 Mr. Scarola.
21 The first portion of our motion deals
22 with Mr. Scarola's very long and laborious
23 speaking objections. And that's an issue
24 the Court can read and perhaps rule upon
25 later, because we would like to just get to
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788223
113
1 the actual questions themselves.
2 THE COURT: What is Q Task? What's
3 that?
4 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: That's where I'm
5 going, Judge. Page four, first question,
6 "What type of information did you the put in
7 Q Task?"
8 Q Task, as the Court may be aware or
9 may not --
10 THE COURT: I don't. That's why I'm
11 asking.
12 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: It was created at
13 RRA. It was a form of instant messaging
14 within the office where the messages
15 received in the office can be deleted. I
16 believe it was created by Mr. Adler, a way
17 in which you can communicate about a case,
18 invite certain people to participate, and
19 then it can be deleted.
20 And based on information, again,
21 available at the time the suit was filed,
22 there was information about the Epstein
23 cases put in Q Task. So those questions
24 weren't answered.
25 And then the questioning continues
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788224
114
1 regarding how LM and EW came to bring a case
2 to Mr. Edwards for him to prosecute against
3 Mr. Epstein. And those questions -- a
4 privilege is asserted. They are not
5 relevant here. They are improper. And
6 furthermore more, Judge, if the Court looks
7 to the specific complaint filed by
8 Mr. Epstein against Mr. Edwards, the
9 allegation that we are stuck to defend here,
10 Rothstein and the litigation team knew or
11 should have known that the three filed cases
12 were weak and had minimal value for the
13 following reasons.
14 Judge, LM and EW were two of the three
15 cases that Mr. Edwards and the Rothstein's
16 firm were prosecuting against Mr. Epstein.
17 LM had testified that she never had any
18 type of sex with Mr. Epstein. She worked at
19 numerous strip clubs, is an admitted
20 prostitute, has a history of illegal drug
21 use, and has asserted her Fifth Amendment to
22 avoid answering questions in deposition
23 testimony.
24 EW testified that she worked at 11
25 different strip clubs, including one in
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788225
115
1 which RRA represented the strip club, The
2 Cheetah, and that EW also worked as a
3 showgirl. Then the same thing with Jane
4 Doe, seeking damages, claiming severe
5 emotional distress.
6 So these are the three cases that
7 Edwards was prosecuting against Mr. Epstein
8 while working at RRA. There's a causal link
9 alleged by Mr. Epstein in his complaint
10 against Mr. Edwards, which forms the basis
11 of Mr. Edwards' lawsuit. Mr. Edwards has
12 asserted that he always acted in good faith,
13 and everything he did while he was at RRA
14 was on the up and up.
15 So these questions go not only to what
16 Mr. Edwards did on behalf of his clients
17 while he was a partner at RRA, but also
18 directly to RRA's involvement in the case
19 and what Mr. Epstein alleged in his
20 complaint against Mr. Edwards that forms the
21 basis of Mr. Edwards' lawsuit.
22 So claiming attorney-client and
23 work-product privilege when asked about EW
24 and LM in Q Task and when information as put
25 in there are questions that should be
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788226
116
1 overturned.
2 Judge, the testimony given by LM and EW
3 before and after RRA became involved in this
4 case is definitely a central issue here.
There was testimony given to the FPI, we
6 believe, because we have privilege logs
7 and -- can't get the information yet, but
8 that's a subject of another motion -- their
9 testimony changed substantially once RRA
10 became involved in this case. That goes
11 right to crux of, again, what Epstein knew
12 at the time these suits were filed. The
13 suit was filed against Edwards, and what
14 Edwards was doing in this case.
15 Judge, if you turn the page, lawyers
16 for Mr. Epstein asked Mr. Edwards if in 2008
17 if he knew whether LM was listed -- I'm
18 sorry -- EW was listed as or deemed to be a
19 victim by the United States Attorney's
20 Office. He again refused to answer that.
21 One of the issues, again, that keeps
22 being raised is the issue of settlement of
23 these cases or ginning up these cases.
24 This is information that goes back to
25 the crux of that issue, and the responses
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788227
117
1 are necessary not only for Epstein to defend
2 this case, but more importantly for Edwards
3 to try to prosecute this case.
4 If he's alleging that everything he did
was legitimate and on the up and up, he
6 should have no problem answering the
7 questions related to what he did.
8 Judge, if you continue on to pages six
9 and seven, the question turns to
10 communications that Mr. Edwards had with the
11 press regarding interviews with his clients.
12 And again, he asserts privilege
13 communications. This is about communicating
14 with the press. There's no basis in law. I
15 will get to the legal arguments later, but I
16 am just going through the questions that
17 refused to be answered at this time.
18 Next it discusses the deposition of the
19 subpoena served on Ms. Maxwell. And
20 Mr. Edwards is asked, "Do you -- is
21 she neither -- would you agree that neither
22 Jane Doe nor LM" -- who are, again,
23 Mr. Edwards' two clients -- "have testified
24 that there have been any connection
25 whatsoever with Ms. Maxwell?"
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788228
118
1 Mr. Edwards answers, "Yes, I would
2 agree."
3 The question then continues to ask,
4 "You know why they are trying to serve a
5 subpoena on Ms. Maxwell to get testimony
6 that these girls that Mr. Edwards was
7 representing never made any allegations that
8 Ms. Maxwell had anything to do with the
9 case?"
10 THE COURT: Who is she?
11 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: She's a very
12 wealthy female who was touted to the
13 investors as another reason why Mr. Epstein
14 would supposedly want to settle these cases
15 to keep her out of it.
16 Next question: "What occurred in the
17 cases that -- investigation of Mr. Epstein
18 while Mr. Edwards was employed by -- and a
19 partner at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler?"
20 Mr. Edwards is asked what investigators
21 worked on Mr. Epstein's cases. Not even
22 what work they did at this point, just who
23 worked on it. Refuse to answer.
24 "Who was the first investigator that
25 you believe was involved in investigating
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788229
119
1 the cases, just to name that topic?"
2 Mr. Scarola: "Work product, instruct
3 you not to answer."
4 It goes on. "Who" -- at the bottom of
page seven. "Who other than Mr. Fisten from
6 an investigator -- from an internal
7 investigator and RRA employee worked on
8 doing investigations on the Epstein files?"
9 Mr. Scarola: "Same objection. Same
10 instruction."
11 "You're claiming work product?"
12 "Yes."
13 And then the conversation continues,
14 then at the bottom -- at the bottom of page
15 seven, "Have you ever directed -- did you
16 ever direct investigators during the time
17 you were at RRA -- and that's the question
18 you are claiming privilege over, correct?"
19 Mr. Scarola: "I am claiming the
20 privilege with respect to any action that
21 was taken by Mr. Edwards or at Mr. Edwards'
22 direction in connection with the
23 investigation, prosecution of the claims
24 against Mr. Epstein."
25 It goes on. The question -- Judge, if
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788230
120
1 you read this yourself -- I don't think I
2 need to read it into the record page by
3 page. Same objection. Same instruction.
4 Mr. Edwards will not answer any questions
regarding what he did or didn't do.
6 This is in direct response to any
7 question related to an investigation of
8 Mr. Epstein solely while he was working as a
9 partner at RRA.
10 Judge, the next page, the subject
11 matter of the examination of deposition
12 turns to other investigations.
13 "Did Mr. Roberts ever perform
14 investigation work on any of the Epstein
15 files?"
16 "Same objection."
17 Judge, you can go through again, that
18 goes to -- Mr. Scarola objects to every
19 question asked.
20 Then the subject turns to Alfredo
21 Rodriguez. Mr. Epstein's attorney attempted
22 to ask on two separate dates about
23 Mr. Rodriquez in the deposition. And again,
24 the first question, Judge -- you can look at
25 he dates and see how germane these issues
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788231
121
1 are.
2 THE COURT: Who is Mr. Rodriguez?
3 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: He is a man who is
4 alleged in Mr. Edwards' -- some of
5 Mr. Edwards' pleadings as -- I'm sorry,
6 Judge -- something to do with -- he was
7 Mr. Epstein's housekeeper.
8 I apologize, Judge. I came into this
9 case in 2012, so I don't know sometimes all
10 of the facts that came before me.
11 Between those two dates, that is July
12 29th and August 17th, 2009 -- and again, if
13 the Court remembers, the date of the Ponzi
14 scheme and the implosion
15 Did you speak with Mr. Rodriguez at
16 all?
17 Refuses to answer.
18 All I am asking right now, not the
19 substance, but just so the record is clear,
20 did you the speak with him? And again,
21 Mr. Edwards won't answer.
22 The examination continues regarding
23 contact with Mr. Rodriguez. And then again
24 you can see all the privileges that were
25 responded to as a result of those questions.
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788232
122
1 Judge, next we're at page 11. The
2 subject matter turns to Mr. Edwards'
3 communications with Maria Villafana, who is
4 the United States attorney -- assistant
5 United States attorney involved in the
6 Epstein cases.
7 Question: My question is only did you
8 speak to her prior to filing that complaint,
9 Doe versus United States. It's just a yes
10 or no.
11 Refuses to answer. Throughout the
12 entire questioning there he refuses to
13 answer.
14 Then it turns to Mr. Edwards'
15 conversations with FBI agents in connection
16 solely about the Epstein cases. And again,
17 he refuses to answer.
18 Page 12, Judge, is where we really get
19 into the heart of the matter. And the
20 subject matter of the examination turns to
21 Mr. Edwards' purported interactions with
22 anyone associated with the Epstein cases.
23 And before I get into these questions,
24 Judge, as the Court may recall and be aware,
25 in some of his pleadings, Mr. Edwards has
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788233
123
1 asserted that the RRA firm and Mr. Edwards'
2 actions were so zealous during this time
3 period -- as part of his defense -- because
4 there was a joint prosecution agreement in
the cases against Mr. Epstein and that RRA
6 was asked to take the lead, or that
7 Mr. Edwards was asked to take the lead
8 because he had three plaintiffs.
9 So these questions are very germane,
10 not only to Mr. Edwards' assertion of why he
11 did what he did, but more importantly to
12 what was actually occurring in these cases
13 during the time frame in which Mr. Epstein
14 formed his basis to file suit against
15 Mr. Edwards.
16 Question: "Mr. Edwards, among the
17 plaintiffs' lawyers, is there any type of
18 joint prosecution agreement related to
19 Mr. Epstein?"
20 "Same objection. Same instruction."
21 Judge, this goes on for two pages. You
22 can see it yourself. Mr. Edwards will not
23 answer any question. This wasn't even
24 asking for a copy of the agreement or what
25 it is. We were just asking what exists.
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788234
124
1 Next page. The discussion turns to the
2 manner in which the cases were handled while
3 Edwards was a partner at RRA, the meeting he
4 had with Mr. Rothstein.
We asked: "The meeting you had in
6 Mr. Rothstein's office with Russell Adler
7 and some unknown person on the phone, were
8 you given any direction at that time that
9 certain discovery should be done, certain
10 tactics should be used with regard to
11 prosecuting the Epstein cases?"
12 "Objection."
13 Question: "What did -- what
14 information did Mr. Rothstein send you that
15 involved Mr. Epstein?"
16 "Same objection. Same instruction."
17 Question: "At the meetings that you
18 at the meetings that occurred where these
19 various lawyers, Berger, Adler, Stone, Rob
20 Bushel were present and Epstein was
21 discussed, was the discovery and/or
22 investigation regarding Mr. Epstein ever
23 discussed?"
24 "Objection."
25 Next line of questions. It turns to
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788235
125
1 the events surrounding the prosecution of
2 the Epstein cases in 2009.
3 Again, Judge the crux of the
4 investigation.
"In setting these depositions that
6 is, in requesting these depositions be taken
7 some time in June or July of 2009 or
8 requesting dates for them, did you have
9 discussions with other attorneys at your
10 firm as to the benefits that would exist in
11 your case -- your three cases against
12 Mr. Epstein by taking these individuals'
13 depositions?"
14 "Objection. Instruct you not to
15 answer."
16 Question: "Mr. Edwards, were you
17 involved in any discussions regarding the
18 depositions -- I'm sorry -- regarding the
19 deposing of any of the people -- of these
20 individuals -- Mr. Trump -- that is, in
21 discussions with any other lawyers in your
22 firm, including Scott Rothstein?"
23 "Same objection. Same instruction."
24 "Did you ever discuss with
25 Mr. Rothstein or anyone on his behalf the
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788236
126
1 value of taking the depositions of Trump,
2 Dershowitz, former President Clinton, David
3 Copperfield, Leslie Wexner as an inducement
4 to get Mr. Epstein to settle his lawsuits?"
Again, Mr. Scarola objects.
6 Judge, this all continues on the next
7 page. The questioning goes on about flight
8 data, planes own by Mr. Epstein. And again
9 same objection.
10 "Were you involved with -- in the
11 discussion to receive flight data associated
12 with any planes purportedly owned by
13 Mr. Epstein?"
14 "Objection. Instruct you not to
15 answer."
16 "Did you have any discussion within
17 your firm with regard to taking the
18 deposition of celebrities, famous people who
19 were reportedly on the plane so that they
20 would be deposed and it would be an
21 inducement to Mr. Epstein to settle his
22 lawsuit?"
23 "Same objection. Same instruction."
24 Question: "Isn't it true, Mr. Edwards,
25 in taking the deposition or in attempting to
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788237
127
1 take the deposition of Donald Trump, you had
2 no information that Mr. Trump had any
3 knowledge of any female having -- that is,
4 underage female ever having been on
5 Mr. Epstein's plane and having been
6 assaulted by him?"
7 And Mr. Scarola: "What Mr. Edwards
8 knew or didn't know in connection with this
9 prosecution of a pending claim is protected
10 by privilege. I instruct him not to
11 answer."
12 The conversation goes on, Judge, to
13 investigation of Officer -- I'm going to say
14 his name wrong. I apologize -- Vakeri
15 (phonetic) -- purpose of the conversation
16 with this officer. No answer, yet he's
17 listed on the witness list at this time.
18 Then the conversation turns to Ken
19 Jenne, former Sheriff who worked at RRA
20 during the time in question.
21 THE COURT: What page are you on?
22 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: I'm at the top of
23 page 15.
24 Same objections.
25 Then, Judge, the second deposition,
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788238
128
1 which occurred immediately prior to this
2 court granting the summary judgment motion,
3 Mr. Edwards was asked additional questions.
4 In addition to the fact that if he were
5 asked all the questions asked the first time
6 would he object again. And he said he
7 would, he would assert the same objections.
8 So Mr. King is at this deposition
9 objecting on grounds of relevancy,
10 materiality, instructing the witness not to
11 answer.
12 And then if the Court turns to page 16,
13 there's actually a statement of government
14 privilege in response to a question: "Did
15 you ever have any contact with Kendall
16 Coffey regarding the propriety or asking him
17 an opinion on the propriety of taking that
18 book from Mr. Rodriguez?"
19 "Same objections. Work product and
20 attorney-client privilege and government
21 privilege."
22 Then again, Judge, if you go on page
23 16, the conversation turns to, "If we ask
24 you every question that was asked in the
25 first deposition would you assert the same
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788239
129
1 privileges?" And they said yes. Then it's
2 made clear that after the court rules on it
3 the deposition will be continued.
4 Then on the next page, Judge, Mr. King
5 presents that they did not produce any items
6 responsive to Schedule AB served with the
7 deposition duces tecum relating to any
8 damages suffered by Mr. Edwards as a result,
9 allegedly, of this lawsuit, which is, again,
10 an element of this case. He asserted
11 financial privacy privilege at the
12 deposition as to anything related to his
13 work, how much money he made, how much money
14 he made while at RRA, how much money he made
15 off the Epstein cases and things of that
16 nature.
17 So, Judge, those are the summaries of
18 topics in the depositions for which we are
19 seeking responses from Mr. Edwards.
20 As set forth in detail within the
21 motion and the case law presented, neither
22 the attorney-client privilege nor the
23 work-product privilege is applicable to
24 virtually anything we ask, and the
25 argumentative objections made by Counsel, as
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788240
130
1 well as other certain questionable
2 objections, have no basis in his assertions
3 and should be overruled.
4 THE COURT: Let me you. Do you know
whether or not the objections are being
6 asserted during the pendency of the claims
7 by the females that had sued Mr. Epstein and
8 that Mr. Edwards was representing at the
9 time since then having been resolved, to my
10 knowledge -- all of those cases?
11 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge -- I'm
12 sorry.
13 THE COURT: That's okay.
14 Or was a matter of objecting relative
15 to mental impressions when it comes to work
16 product? Because I really don't see an
17 attorney-client privilege in any of
18 questions asked as it relates to the present
19 case, that is, Edwards/Epstein matter. Does
20 it relate to attorney and work product
21 privilege as it relates to that case, the
22 current case that we have in front of us?
23 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, Mr. Edwards
24 sued Mr. Epstein. And he asserted in no
25 uncertain terms in his complaint that every
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788241
131
1 action he took in these cases were
2 legitimate and for a legitimate purpose, and
3 he did not engage in any impropriety.
4 As a result, these questions, many of
which just required a yes or no answer, go
6 to the crux of the allegations he made. He
7 made the statement --
8 THE COURT: I understand. And my
9 question is not necessarily one of relevance
10 particularly for discovery purposes where we
11 know that the bounds of discovery are much
12 broader than what may be admissible. The
13 test is whether or not the information
14 sought is reasonably calculated to lead to
15 the discovery of admissible evidence.
16 What I'm trying to understand, though,
17 is one of privilege -- and whether you can
18 answer for me -- perhaps Mr. Scarola will be
19 able to do so -- the timing of these
20 depositions may or may not be close to when
21 these cases were still -- the minor female
22 cases or the adult female -- whomever it was
23 that sued -- sued Mr. Edwards (sic) were to
24 recover damages for alleged physical abuse.
25 So my question is whether or not these
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788242
132
1 privileges that were asserted --
2 particularly the work-product privilege
3 related to those cases that would have been
4 still pending at the time these depositions
were taken, meaning the ones that
6 Mr. Edwards was representing the females --
7 or was it in conjunction with the case that
8 is at issue here.
9 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, the three
10 cases that Mr. Edwards was prosecuting
11 against Mr. Epstein, the civil cases, were
12 all settled by the time the second
13 deposition took place.
14 I believe they were settled shortly
15 after Mr. Edwards gave his first deposition.
16 But they were certainly settled before I
17 came into the case in 2012. So I can tell
18 you, in no uncertain terms, by the time
19 Mr. Edwards' second deposition was taken
20 they had long been settled, because that was
21 in 2013.
22 Judge, I would say not only were the
23 cases closed, but Mr. Edwards put his work
24 product at issue by filing this suit. So
25 certainly, if not when the cases were still
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788243
133
1 pending, but once the cases were settled he
2 needed to answer those questions and still
3 does.
4 With respect -- I guess to answer your
question regarding the work-product
6 doctrine and of course, obviously, this
7 information is needed, as the Court's aware
8 what the law says -- this information is
9 needed for Mr. Epstein to defend himself.
10 And indeed, more importantly, Mr. Edwards
11 will need to use it if he's going to
12 successfully attempt to prosecute this case
13 against Mr. Epstein and say what he alleges
14 in his complaint.
15 He has the burden of proof that
16 everything he did was on the up and up. You
17 can't assert a privilege for every action
18 you took in prosecuting a case and then come
19 back and not give us the information of what
20 you did to defend it.
21 Judge, the law states that if we show
22 that we the party seeking the discovery need
23 the material for preparation of our case,
24 and we are unable, without undue hardship,
25 to obtain the equivalent material another
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788244
134
1 way, that the court should grant us the
2 access to the information. That's in
3 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4),
4 and in Genovese versus Provident Life 74
So.3d 1064 Florida Supreme Court 2011.
6 It's also established, Judge, under the
7 law, that a plaintiff cannot assert
8 work-product privilege to avoid answering
9 questions regarding his own allegations that
10 he alleges in a complaint, even if the
11 question reveals a legal theory of his case.
12 And the case that stands for that
13 proposition, Judge, is Dunkin' Donuts versus
14 Mary's Donuts, 206 F.R.D. 518 Southern
15 District of Florida 2002. And again, the
16 rationale supporting this was quoted by the
17 Florida Supreme Court in 1994 in the
18 Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph
19 Company versus Deason.
20 Frankly, Judge, if the Court wants me
21 to go through the other objections that were
22 raised in deposition that have no basis in
23 law in a deposition, objections such as
24 assumes facts not in evidence; hypothetical
25 question; no proper predicate; not
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788245
135
1 reasonably calculated to lead to the
2 discovery of admissible evidence; the
3 financial part -- I'm sorry, government
4 privilege -- it's all laid out there. I
5 don't think it requires a long belaboring
6 legal argument from me.
7 Frankly Judge, the objection on the
8 grounds of financial privacy -- I'm on page
9 22 of my motion judge.
10 THE COURT: I am with you.
11 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: We understand
12 perhaps better than the average defendant
13 that there is a financial right to privacy
14 and sometimes it can be waived.
15 Judge, it can be waived when the
16 material that's sort by a party is relevant
17 to the subject matter of the pending action.
18 Here, Judge, Mr. Edwards is claiming
19 damages against Mr. Epstein. Part of those
20 damages include injury to his reputation as
21 an attorney; loss of time diverted from his
22 practice, again, as an attorney. And how
23 does one quantify this? It's monetary.
24 It's financial.
25 If his reputation suffered somehow as a
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788246
136
1 result of being sued by Mr. Epstein in 2009
2 and not by being partners with Scott
3 Rothstein, we are entitled to pursue that.
4 We're entitled to the discovery to show how
much money he made while he was working at
6 RRA, before he was working at RRA, after he
7 worked at RRA, what his relationship was
8 with the alleged other plaintiffs with whom
9 he had a joint prosecution agreement that he
10 refuses to turn over, how the money was
11 split up once the cases were settled.
12 All of those issues, Judge, relate to
13 financial damages that he is alleging in
14 this case.
15 THE COURT: Joint prosecution agreement
16 means that one or more than one of these
17 alleged victims would be jointly prosecuting
18 Mr. Epstein? Is that what this is supposed
19 to be?
20 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. In
21 some pleadings, Mr. Edwards has asserted, in
22 defense to our allegations of what went on
23 in the cases while he was a partner at RRA,
24 he alleged that basically RRA was taking the
25 helm, because they had the financial means
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788247
137
1 to conduct all this discovery. And it was
2 pursuant to a joint prosecution agreement
3 or a co-plaintiff -- I might be using the
4 wrong words -- but it was asked in the
deposition. Mr. Edwards brought this up.
6 This wasn't something that Mr. Epstein just
7 thought was occurring.
8 Then when we pressed Mr. Edwards to
9 provide answers to that with whom, how did
10 it work out, did you have anything in
11 writing, Mr. Edwards refused to answer the
12 questions, as you saw in here, pursuant to
13 work-product privilege, attorney-client
14 privilege.
15 In this case, Judge, the damages he's
16 claiming allegedly could have started in
17 2009 and could be continuing to present
18 date, because this lawsuit is still going
19 on.
20 THE COURT: I understand.
21 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: So it's our
22 position that because he's made his
23 finances or his financial damages -- it's
24 an element of this case. It's not just
25 run-of-the-mill let's let the jury decide it
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788248
138
1 thought he was damaged, he has to prove
2 damages. And we are entitled to explore
3 what damages he may have suffered so we can
4 determine the value of his case, if any, and
so we can properly defend against it.
6 THE COURT: Was any production in the
7 request made in that respect?
8 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Yes, Judge. Again
9 it was requested in his depo, and he
10 objected to everything. And we did serve
11 him after -- after the stay was lifted, I
12 served damages interrogatories to
13 Mr. Edwards, and we received unverified
14 responses in the middle of last week. So I
15 don't have a verified answer to those yet.
16 THE COURT: Do you have those with you
17 so I can take a look? We may be able to
18 bypass some of the discussion and get into
19 the sufficiency of those unverified answers.
20 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: I do, Judge. If
21 you give me just a moment. It's in my file.
22 Judge, the instructions won't be here,
23 but the relevant time period was 2006 -- or
24 2008, I believe, right before Mr. Edwards
25 went to work at RRA when he was a sole
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788249
139
1 practitioner. And before that he was an
2 assistant state attorney.
3 May I approach?
4 THE COURT: Sure.
MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: This is
6 Mr. Scarola's filing notice of serving
7 unverified answers, as well as our questions
8 and his answers, the objections.
9 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, may I request
10 a copy of that? I didn't bring it with me,
11 as it is not raised as an issue in the
12 motion.
13 THE COURT: Obviously it was something
14 that I was interested in and perhaps it
15 wasn't raised but it could hopefully curtail
16 some of discussions here once I take a look
17 at them.
18 Deputy, would you ask Denise to kindly
19 make an extra copy, please?
20 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, with
21 respect to the rest of the motion, we
22 just -- in the motion we -- again, the last
23 deposition was taken a month before you
24 granted the first summary judgment. And as
25 you know, from June 2013 -- I'm sorry from
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788250
140
1 -- the case had basically not been actively
2 prosecuted in this court until June 2017
3 when the Florida Supreme Court issued its
4 final ruling. So should the Court grant our
motion, we did preserve the right to
6 redepose Mr. Edwards on these issues.
7 We feel not only that all of the
8 actions taken by Mr. Edwards while
9 prosecuting the cases at RRA are issues that
10 need to be answered. Judge, Mr. Edwards'
11 reputation and -- commiserate with his
12 financial business what he was bringing in
13 as an attorney and through his law firm both
14 before and while at RRA, as well as after
15 leaving RRA, go straight to the heart of
16 what he's claiming, being injury to his
17 reputation and time away -- diverted away
18 from his cases.
19 We are hopeful that the Court will
20 review all of that information as well as
21 the case law relied upon in our motion, and
22 compel Mr. Edwards to answer the questions
23 that are related to this lawsuit.
24 THE COURT: As I said, I don't know if
25 you've had the opportunity to review the
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788251
141
1 answers that are unverified.
2 From a telephone conversation that
3 Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards
4 and I had regarding the logistics of trying
to deal with the stay or a motion and how we
6 were going to go forward, the manner in
7 which we can proceed -- Mr. Edwards was on
8 the telephone from Jamaica so it may have
9 been just a matter of his unavailability
10 that caused the unverified answers.
11 Have you had a chance to look at them?
12 MS. HADDAD COLEMAN: Judge, I was at a
13 funeral Friday and couldn't appear
14 telephonically. I did. He object -- if you
15 read the first 25, objection, irrelevant,
16 not likely to lead to admissible evidence,
17 overbroad, without any law or any assertion
18 other than that.
19 Then the last few say, different
20 answers, which is -- a few of them are
21 really related to the verification.
22 But basically there's no answers there,
23 other than the amounts -- he gives us the
24 amounts that the three cases Mr. Edwards was
25 prosecuting against Mr. Epstein were settled
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788252
142
1 for, which clearly we know because
2 Mr. Epstein paid the money. So there's no
3 substantive answer to any of them, would be
4 my answer to you at my first glean of them.
5 THE COURT: All right, we will take a
6 look at that.
7 All right, in the meantime while I'm
8 waiting to get those, Mr. Scarola, you want
9 to respond to these general areas of inquiry
10 and the position that you are taking as of
11 now, because I think that's really what
12 matters as opposed to then?
13 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, I would like
14 to. Indeed, that is a very significant
15 distinction because --
16 THE COURT: Deputy, hand out the
17 copies.
18 MR. SCAROLA: At the time that both
19 depositions were taken, there were competing
20 claims that had not yet been resolved,
21 including Mr. Epstein's claim against
22 Mr. Edwards, in which Mr. Epstein bore the
23 burden of proving that Mr. Edwards lacked a
24 good faith basis for all of the claims that
25 he brought against Mr. Epstein and all of
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788253
143
1 the conduct that he had engaged in during
2 the course of those prosecutions.
3 Obviously, with regard to the conduct
4 that occurred during the course of the
prosecutions, that conduct was covered by
6 the litigation privilege, and therefore, all
7 inquiries into any post-filing activities on
8 Mr. Edwards' part was not relevant or
9 material and could not lead to the discovery
10 of relevant or material information.
11 And since it was relevant only to or
12 since the line of inquiry was being pursued
13 with regard to Mr. Epstein's claims against
14 Mr. Edwards, there was no sword/shield
15 concern in that regard.
16 We are now in a position where
17 Mr. Edwards' state of mind at the time he
18 filed his claims against Mr. Epstein has
19 been resolved by virtue of a motion for
20 summary judgment. That is, we moved for
21 summary judgment on the basis that
22 Mr. Edwards did nothing improper, had
23 probable cause to support all of these
24 claims. No opposition was filed to that
25 motion.
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788254
144
1 And on the eve of the summary judgment
2 hearing, a voluntary dismissal was taken.
3 So there has been a disposition favorable to
4 Mr. Edwards as a matter of law with regard
5 to those claims.
6 So what remains at issue presently is
7 not Mr. Edwards' state of mind, but
8 Mr. Epstein's state of mind. At the time
9 that Mr. Epstein filed his claims against
10 Mr. Edwards -- the five claims that we have
11 referenced earlier this morning on more than
12 one occasion -- the issue in that regard is
13 limited to what Mr. Epstein knew at the time
14 he initiated those prosecutions, and not
15 what he has somehow able to try to discover
16 to attempt to justify his unjustified and
17 unjustifiable actions at the time it was
18 taken.
19 That is, he cannot prove that he had
20 probable cause by reference to things he had
21 no knowledge of, and could not have had any
22 knowledge of at the time he filed those
23 claims. That would specifically include
24 knowledge of any communications that
25 Mr. Edwards had with his clients.
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788255
145
1 Obviously, Mr. Epstein did not know
2 about the content of attorney-client
3 privilege communications, and could not rely
4 upon the existence of the substance of those
5 communications to try to justify his lawsuit
6 against Mr. Edwards.
7 He also did not know about Mr. Edwards'
8 work product, Mr. Edwards' mental
9 impressions, Mr. Edwards' Q-Tip (sic)
10 communications --
11 THE COURT: Q Task.
12 MR. SCAROLA: Q Task. Thank you.
13 -- in the intra-office system that
14 existed during Brad Edwards' prosecution of
15 his claims against Mr. Epstein.
16 Incidentally, Brad Edwards began the
17 prosecution of those claims long before he
18 ever became a member of RRA. Those cases
19 were all filed, they were being actively
20 prosecuted and pursued when Mr. Edwards was
21 hired by the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler
22 firm.
23 But what went on in those cases after
24 Brad Edwards had filed them, was obviously
25 not something that Mr. Epstein could rely
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc.
EFTA00788256
146
1 upon. If he didn't already know it at the
2 time he filed suit, he could not rely upon
3 it as justifying his having filed suit, so
4 it could not possibly be part of probable
cause.
6 Now, one thing that is glaringly
7 omitted from the argument that Your Honor
8 has heard on these issues is how Brad
9 Edwards could possibly waive a privilege
10 that doesn't belong to him.
11 The attorney-client privilege is not
12 the lawyer's privilege. The attorney-client
13 privilege belongs to the client. The
14 clients are not parties to this action. The
15 clients have taken no action that could
16 waive attorney-client privilege. They have
17 not waived it and Brad Edwards i
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
5664bb008dcabc676b0cc881df0497fd80210386591cbcb7aa1bb3f622c07429
Bates Number
EFTA00788219
Dataset
DataSet-9
Document Type
document
Pages
145
Comments 0