EFTA00808704.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 13, 2018, Motion to Strike Epstein's Motion for in Camera Inspection of 30 E-Mails and states: INTRODUCTION Edwards knows only one path: hide and deflect from the truth. Pursuant to long- established Florida Supreme Court precedent, Epstein is required to articulate his "specific legal argument" in order to properly preserve it for appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. This preservation is particularly necessary in light of this Court's recent ruling striking 126 of Epstein's trial exhibits, many of which were public records or already in Edwards' possession and which Epstein specifically identified and provided to Edwards more than eight months ago. With regard to the 30 e-mails and this Court's ruling on procedure at the November 2, 2018 hearing, Epstein fully complied with this Court's oral ruling and written order — in both the spirit and letter of the EFTA00808704 law —by filing a motion for in camera inspection of a "generic quality" and leaving the "substantive discussion of those e-mails...under seal by way of memorandum." This is precisely what was accomplished by Epstein. Disappointingly, Edwards prefers that Epstein be silenced from making any appellate record — which simply is not the law. Edwards' unmeritorious Motion to Strike must be denied. EPSTEIN'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 2, 2018, HEARING After ruling that Epstein would not be allowed to use certain exhibits identified since March 2018 on his Clerk's Trial Exhibit List under a Binger' analysis, this Court raised the pending issue of the 47 e-mails that Edwards claims are privileged and Epstein's pending request for an in camera review. As to those documents, the Court found: ... I think that they do have a bit of a different connotation and import as it relates to whether or not late-filed, because if they were contained in the 2010 [sic-2011] privilege log, it's very difficult to suggest that there would be prejudice as to knowledge on the part of those documents being potentially utilized. (11/2/18 Hearing Tr., 115:5-12.) The Court then instructed the parties to submit briefing on the issue: So what I will need is the emails sent to my office under seal. I will be the only one to review those emails. What I then would need from you is the motion that's filed, and I don't know how there can be a viable discussion without discussing the contents of the emails in a setting that the memoranda is sent under seal, and for attorneys' eyes only. *** I think the best approach would be for a motion to be filed of a generic quality that does not mention any contents of these emails, but simply tees it up, so to speak, with the understanding on this record today that any substantive discussion of those emails will be done under seal by way of memorandum, and that will be done under seal and will continue to be under seal, and will be filed under seal in case of Ringer v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981). 2 EFTA00808705  a need for appellate review. So that is going to be the direction of the Court, that the motion be filed, but that the memorandum be sent under seal to this Court, hand-delivered to me, sealed. And the same response memorandum be sent to be under seal by Mr. Edwards' counsel a week later. (11/2/18 Hearing Tr., 120:17-25; 122:22-123:14.) This Court only limited Epstein to a motion "generic in nature" to the extent that the motion could not (and did not) specifically quote any of the e-mails or specifically discuss their contents. However, this Court also recognized the need for Epstein's motion to "tee up" the argument and then provide the specific references to the e-mails in the sealed memorandum. The Court's oral ruling was reduced to a proposed written Order by Epstein's counsel, with one minor change by Edwards' counsel, and remained consistent with the oral ruling that any "specific" citations and references to the e-mails would be in the memorandum filed under seal. There can be no legitimate dispute — Epstein complied with the sealing of the memorandum that specifically cited to and quoted the e-mails. Edwards seems to take issue with the fact that Epstein fully (20 pages) and specifically (as required by the law) raised his legal arguments in the motion. Edwards' flawed argument avoids the obvious - Epstein never once cited or quoted a specific e-mail, despite how compelling a public argument each e-mail presents for relevance, and for no privilege or protection in light of Edwards' defective and misleading privilege log and Edwards' sworn testimony in this lawsuit. Rather, Epstein complied with Florida law by articulating his specific legal arguments as to why the e- mails are relevant, never had any attorney-client privilege, no longer have protection of work- product given Edwards' noncompliance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and a defective, if not worse, privilege log, as well as producing all of the 27,542 e-mails to an adversary, issue 3 EFTA00808706 injection (Edwards' sworn testimony) and the crime fraud exception found in the Florida Evidence Code. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REOUIRES SPECIFIC LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLATE PRESERVATION Edwards' trial counsel knows the law, having been involved in at least one appeal addressing this legal tenet. See Eagleman v. Korzeniowski, 924 So. 2d 855, 860 (Fla. 4'h DCA 2006)("In order to be preserved for appellate review, the specific argument made on appeal must have been raised when the party objected in the trial court.") In fact, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that, "[i]t defies logic for a party to expect to be able to take no position on an issue in the trial court and then take whatever position is most advantageous to it on appeal; a party must take some position below in order for this court to review how the trial court ruled on that position." Id. at 859. In Edwards' view of the law, Epstein should be darned if he does, darned if he does not. Had Epstein not articulated the specific legal bases in his motion, Edwards would have claimed "lack of preservation" on appeal! See Diaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, M., 189 So. 3d 279, 282 (Fla. 5'h DCA 2016)("To preserve an issue for appellate review, "the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial....") citing Allis v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2010); Cadavieco v. Castle Key Ins. Co., 246 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)(affirrned citing civil cases holding that in order to be preserved for appellate review, issue must be presented to lower court and the snecific legal argument raised). Accordingly, Epstein complied with this Court's order — and Florida law — by making his specific legal argument and being "generic" in his reference to the e-mails. Not once did Epstein quote or specifically reference an e-mail in his motion. In addition, Epstein did not say anything 4 EFTA00808707 in his motion that has not already been said multiple times before in public filings. See Exhibit B for an illustrative sampling of prior statements made in public filings. EDWARDS' NOVEMBER 2017 DEPOSITION In denying Epstein the right to use exhibits identified on his March 2018 Clerk's Trial Exhibit List, the Court claimed that, because Epstein did not question Edwards about the documents during his November 2017 deposition, Edwards was prejudiced under a Binger analysis: COURT: [W]hen you took Mr. Edwards' deposition in December [sic-November] of 2017, he was not provided with these documents to be able to discuss them, to be able to review them, even if it was at his deposition you said, look, here's public records that you probably are not totally aware of, you may be, you may not be, but here they are. Mr. Scarola may have objected, may have requested the termination of the deposition to seek a protective order so that he, Mr. Edwards, would have the opportunity to properly prepare his testimony in relation to these records. Because if I'm gathering what I think I'm going to gather by way of your response --- he wasn't given these records at his deposition, correct? MR. LINK: They weren't, and I never would do that in a deposition, Your Honor. Why do I have to show him my cross? What in the rule says I have to confront him at deposition with exhibits that I want to use at trial? *** COURT: ... [T]he overarching, the pervasive rule of, we are not going to competence trial by ambush. MR. LINK: Sir, that's why they're listed on the exhibit list. I don't have to ask him during deposition. *** COURT: My respectful point is that in order to properly prepare for one of the most critical parts of a case, that being the plaintiff's deposition, especially where here it's coming almost ten years after a given case has been filed, that that party has the opportunity to 5 EFTA00808708  prepare themselves with what is going to be confronting them relative to the material elements of the case. (11/2/18 Hearing Tr., 85:9-87:10.)2 First, as Epstein's counsel argued during the November 2, 2018, hearing, there is absolutely no rule that requires that a witness be shown at deposition every exhibit that is going to be used for cross during trial. Nevertheless, at the time of Edwards' November 10, 2017, deposition the parties had not even filed their final Exhibit Lists (i.e., Epstein filed his Amended Exhibit List on November 16, 2017 and Edwards filed his Second Amended Exhibit List on December 7, 2017). The Binger rulings made so far by this Court and the striking of exhibits make it clear that a detailed appellate record is necessary and that taking shortcuts on preserving that record would cause even more prejudice to Epstein. EDWARDS COMMITTED THE PRECISE FOUL HE CLAIMS AGAINST EPSTEIN In contrast to Epstein's compliance with this Court's Order and sealing of the records, Edwards himself has referenced Epstein's statements in public filings: D.E. Date Document D.E. 1257 03/06/18 Edwards' Response to Epstein's Motion for Court to Declare Relevance and Non-Privileged Nature of Documents, etc. ¶ 5 - "In his Notice of Filing Appendix, Epstein, through counsel, includes privileged materials under a section titled 'Edwards' Direct Involvement in Rothstein's Ponzi Scheme.' If nothing but consistent, Epstein, through counsel, then sprinkles throughout the Motion for Court to Declare Relevance direct accusations and implicit insinuations that, regardless of whether Epstein had probable cause to institute or continue his malicious lawsuit against Edwards, it turns out that Edwards was secretly involved in the Ponzi scheme after all! For example, Epstein claims that the emails are "evidence that shows [Edwards') direct participation with Rothstein to avoid the structured settlement statute for an Epstein case" and questions whether these e- mails "were turned over to the U.S. Attorney." D.E. 1318 04/03/18 Edwards' Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order (withdrawn) — quoting Epstein's statements: 2Excerpts of the November 2, 2018, Hearing Transcript are attached as Exhibit A. 6 EFTA00808709  D.E. I Date Document ¶ 12 - "Second, the alleged eight-year-old "confidential" information to which Edwards refers is 47 exhibits comprised of a series of communications between Edwards and other attorneys, including Scott Rothstein, that eviscerate Edwards' case against Epstein in its entirety . . . Moreover, on their face, all of these eight-year-old communications clearly show that Edwards' claims of work product simply do not apply. These inculpatory communications cannot constitute work-product. They directly relate to issues that Edwards himself has made central to this case and their content provides independent grounds to reject work product protection, including both the crime fraud exception and potential unprofessional conduct . .. the trial court refused to evaluate these issues, choosing instead to exclude the communications on the basis of what the Court believed was Epstein's untimely request to identify them on his Exhibit List." ¶ 14 - "Included among those issues to be perfected at the trial court is Edwards' errant claim of 'privilege' which remains a cloud below preventing the admission of crucial evidence that Epstein maintains is dispositive of this case. That evidence must be reviewed in camera by the trial court while the appellate issues are under review. Consistent with this Court's interest in 'fairness' and 'efficient use of the trial court's time and resources,' Epstein will be narrowing his request for in camera review down from 27,000 pages to a readily manageable fraction, 47 exhibits numbering approximately 100 pages." ¶ 15 - "In fact, Edwards' counterclaim is thoroughly disproved by direct documentary evidence of Edwards' own misconduct and credibility that Epstein is currently asking the trial court to review for presentation to the jury when this case is tried." ¶ 17 - "Recent events (appeal and stay) and the discovery of e-mails that totally eviscerate Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") claims and shines a light on his true motivation have prompted unprofessional behavior from Edwards and his counsel evidenced by the unilateral setting of hearings, certificates of conferring that never happened and intentional ex parte attendance at a hearing despite knowing of Epstein's counsel's unavailability." 401 DCA 04/03/18 Edwards' Motion to Strike All References to the Alleged Contents of Material Which Epstein and His Counsel Unlawfully Possessed - - quoting Epstein's statement (Denied by the 4th DCA) ¶ 7 - "In fact, Edwards' counterclaim is thoroughly disproved by direct documentary evidence of Edwards' own misconduct and credibility that Epstein is currently asking the trial court to review for presentation to the jury when this case is tried." Edwards cannot complain about Epstein's "generic" references when he himself has publicly disclosed much more! EDWARDS' RECOGNITION OF WAIVED NN OItk PRODUCT More likely than not, Edwards makes this desperate "striking" attempt to again hide the 7 EFTA00808710 truth by claiming Epstein disregarded this Court's rulings and the "sacrosanct nature of a privilege assertion" because Edwards knows he is in trouble. Despite his belated claims of sacrosanct privilege (which the Court can plainly see does not exist in any one of the e-mails), Edwards clearly waived any work-product protection he may have had by — among other compelling reasons -- his complete failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). With Epstein's citation in his motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. McGee, 837 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. zPil DCA 2002), Edwards is about to suffer the same fate as GM based on his Rule 1.280-noncompliant privilege log and the central issues to Edwards' lawsuit that the e-mails implicate. As the trial judge in the GM case, this Court cannot: as suggested by Counsel [asserting the privilege], simply forget about these documents and continue on with this trial as though they don't exist. This Court still adheres to the belief that: "We who labor here seek only truth." Id. at 1025. In fact, McGee establishes the very legal basis why Epstein had to articulate Edwards' deliberate attempt to "conceal" the e-mails in a misleading privilege log, falsely assert attorney- client privilege where none existed between an attorney and client, issue injection given his deposition testimony in this lawsuit as recently as November 2017, and the crime-fraud exception found in section 90.502, Florida Statutes. In truth, there is nothing violative of this Court's order to argue that the e-mails are "case-ending." That is argument, not specific citation to the content of the e-mails. CONCLUSION Edwards' Motion to Strike must be seen for what it is — yet another attempt to divert those who labor seeking only truth. Epstein complied with this Court's ruling and Florida law in filing a motion for in camera review of 30 e-mails, not once citing or specifically referencing the e- 8 EFTA00808711 mails' content, but raising "specific legal argument" as required by law. Epstein next followed both the spirit and letter of the law in filing under seal his memorandum which quoted and cited the specific 30 e-mails which never were protected by attorney-client privilege, have no arguable work product cloak given Edwards' actions with waiver and a non-compliant privilege log designed to deceive the recipient — Epstein. Edwards' attempt to hide the truth must be denied and the e-mails be illuminated by the light of this courtroom. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on November 14, 2018, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1). LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 930 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 [fax] By: Is/ Scott J. Link (FBN Kara Berard Rockenbach (FBN Primary: Primary: Secondary: Secondary: Counselfor Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 9 EFTA00808712  SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Philip M. Burlington Karen E. Teny Nichole J. Segal David P. Vitale, Jr. Burlington & Rockenbach, Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, M. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33409 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Counselfor Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Co-Counselfor Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Marc S. Nurik Edwards Pottinger LLC Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Co-Counselfor Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Counselfor Defendant Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards Jack A. Goldberger Paul Cassell Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, M. 383 S. University St. 250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 LimitedIntervenor a -Counselfor E.W. and Jane Doe Co-Counselfor Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Jay Howell Jay Howell & Associates 644 Cesery Blvd., Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 LimitedIntervenor a -Counselfor n, E.W. and Jane Doe 10 EFTA00808713  EXHIBIT B Epstein's References to E-mails in Public Filings A. Circuit Court Action D.E. Date Document D.E. 1264 03/07/18 Epstein's Response to Edwards' Motion to Strike Epstein's Untimely Supplemental Exhibit List and to Strike All Exhibits and Reference to Documents Containing Privileged Materials Page 4 — Provided illustra ive samples of e-mails: • 4408-4412 is an 10/17/09 e-mail exchange between Edwards and Cassell. • 4399-4400 is an 10/17/09 e-mail exchange between Edwards and Cassell. • Multiple e-mails dated 10/23/09 about Edwards' direct participation with Rothstein. Pages 6-7 "The trial of this case should be about uncovering the truth related to Edwards' claim against Epstein, which Edwards contends is directly related to the truth of Epstein's claims against Rothstein and Edwards, not about hiding relevant evidence." Page 9 "Edwards has asked the Court to strike highly relevant documents Epstein has identified and disclosed as trial exhibits because they are detrimental to his case and question his credibility, not because they will cause any undue prejudice because of their alleged late disclosure." Page 10 "A. Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler E-mails Epstein identified and disclosed a number of emails from the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Alder firm that directly contradict sworn testimony and statements in this case. Specifically, Edwards has testified under oath that he had no involvement with Rothstein related to the Epstein cases and that he has suffered anxiety every single day since December 7, 2009, when Epstein filed his Complaint against him. Edwards, however, was not being truthful. D.E. 1309 I 03/29/18 I Epstein's Motion to Address Scheduling and Professionalism Intro "Recent events (appeal and stay) and the discovery of e-mails that totally eviscerate Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") claims and shines a light on his true motivation have prompted unprofessional behavior from Edwards and his counsel evidenced by the unilateral setting of hearings, certificates of conferring that never happened and intentional ex parte attendance at a hearing despite knowing of Epstein's counsel's unavailability." [Edwards quotes this passage in his 4/3/18 Circuit Court Motion for Sanctions -- withdrawn] II EFTA00808714  D.E. Date Document D.E. 1319 04/04/18 Epstein's Supplement to Motion for Court to Declare Relevance and Non-Privilege Nature of Documents Page 2 - Preface "Now that the appellate court has made this time available to address pending matters, it is up to this Court to determine whether Edwards may continue to conceal and withhold from the July clearly relevant, case-ending evidence that makes it impossible for Edwards to satisfy his heavy burden to establish a cause of action against Epstein for malicious prosecution." Page 3 — Introduction "These e-mails are not only relevant and material, they eviscerate Edwards' case." "Edwards has improperly withheld these undeniably relevant e-mails from valid discovery requests." "In order ensure that the e-mails would never the light of day, Edwards concealed their existence by hiding them within a deceptively worded 1,607 entry, 159-page privilege log." "Lacking any legal justification for withholding them in the first place, and having concealed this misconduct through a deceptively vague and non-compliant privilege log designed to ensure that the existence of these documents would never be detected, Edwards is now left with no choice but to protest wildly with unfounded allegations of "stolen" e-mails hoping that this will distract this Court from its duty to conduct an examination of the documents Edwards has so improperly withheld and concealed." Page 7 "Although Edwards did, in fact, produce documents as 'attorneys' eyes only' in February 2011, it has now come to light that Edwards only produced select items, and specifically withheld inculpatory e-mails pertaining to his closed cases against Epstein, despite Edwards' agreement not to withhold work product pertaining to the closed cases." Pages 10-11 "While the e-mails remained concealed through Edwards' improper device, Edwards continued to prosecute his counterclaim against Epstein based on the very issues directly refuted by e-mails Edwards concealed from existence. Edwards should not be rewarded for such unethical gamesmanship." Page 24 "This Court should not countenance Edwards' concealment of material evidence directly relevant to issues he has made central to this case in flagrant disregard for the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, established precedent and the orders of this Court." 12 EFTA00808715 D.E. 1330 04/24/18 Epstein's Response to Edwards' Motion to be Permitted to Take Epstein's Limited Deposition Page 2 "This Court's confirmation that no such privilege exists with respect to those materials will eliminate any conceivable reason (no matter how questionable) to seek Epstein's deposition and will expose Edwards' current Motion as yet another attempt to hide critical case-ending evidence from the jury that vindicate Epstein's actions in filing suit against Edwards." D.E. 1346 06/07/18 Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order and the Intervenors' Joinder Page 5 "These 47 exhibits go to the very heart of Edwards' disingenuous allegation that there was a complete absence of probable cause for Epstein to sue Edwards, and they readily defeat Edwards' claim of purported damages! Edwards nevertheless withheld them and concealed their existence through the device of a deliberately vague and legally non- compliant privilege log." "these e-mails demonstrate the falsity of Edwards' claim that he was hurt by Epstein's lawsuit and that Epstein had no reasonable basis to allege that Edwards was involved in Rothstein's Ponzi scheme using the tort claimants' cases" Page 6 "Edwards' moving to prevent Epstein from discussing the exhibits generally is simply another transparent attempt by Edwards to hide the truth ... The Fourth District Court of Appeal, however, rejected Edwards' argument and refused to strike Epstein's general statements that the e-mails are case-ending and defeat Edwards' malicious prosecution claim against Epstein." Page 8 "It certainly did not preclude a general reference to their existence. Nor does a reference to their devastating impact on Edwards' cause of action reveal the specific information contemplated in the documents and violate this blanket order." Page 10 "If the Court's ruling prohibits general statements about the e-mails, including that they are "detrimental" or "case-ending" to Edwards' malicious prosecution action, even in court filings, then Epstein's counsel would be prevented from advancing any argument for an in camera review or other relief with respect to the e-mails in this Court or the appellate court or from defending himself in the Bankruptcy Court." 13 EFTA00808716 B. Fourth DCA D.E. Date Document 03/14/18 Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' Motion for Partial Relief from Stay Pages 3-4 "Second, the alleged eight-year-old "confidential" information to which Edwards refers is 47 exhibits comprised of a series of communications between Edwards and other attorneys, including Scott Rothstein, that eviscerate Edwards' case against Epstein in its entirety . . . Moreover, on their face, all of these eight-year-old communications clearly show that Edwards' claims of work product simply do not apply. These inculpatory communications cannot constitute work-product. They directly relate to issues that Edwards himself has made central to this case and their content provides independent grounds to reject work product protection, including both the crime fraud exception and potential unprofessional conduct . . . the trial court refused to evaluate these issues, choosing instead to exclude the communications on the basis of what the Court believed was Epstein's untimely request to identify them on his Exhibit List." [Edwards quotes this passage in his 4/3/18 Circuit Court Motion for Sanctions -- withdrawn 03/22/18 Epstein's Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Edwards is Not in Violation of This Court's Order Dated March 20, 2018 Page 8 "Included among those issues to be perfected at the trial court is Edwards' errant claim of 'privilege' which remains a cloud below preventing the admission of crucial evidence that Epstein maintains is dispositive of this case. That evidence must be reviewed in camera by the trial court while the appellate issues are under review. Consistent with this Court's interest in 'fairness' and 'efficient use of the trial court's time and resources,' Epstein will be narrowing his request for in camera review down from 27,000 pages to a readily manageable fraction, 47 exhibits numbering approximately 100 pages." [Edwards quotes this passage in his 4/3/18 Circuit Court Motion for Sanctions 03/26/18 Epstein's Reply to Edwards' Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari Page 1 "In fact, Edwards' counterclaim is thoroughly disproved by direct documentary evidence of Edwards' own misconduct and credibility that Epstein is currently asking the trial court to review for presentation to the jury when this case is tried." [Edwards quotes this passage in his 4/3/18 Circuit Court Motion for Sanctions] The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Edwards' Motion to Strike these statements without even giving Epstein the opportunity to respond and Edwards withdrew his Motion for Sanctions filed in the Circuit Court. 14 EFTA00808717 C. Bankruptcy Court D.E. Date Document 6351 04/09/18 Epstein's Response in Opposition to Farmer Jaffe's Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause, etc. Page 2 "The Court should not spend its valuable time and resources on this transparent and frivolous attempt to taint Epstein in order to divert attention from the fact that for eight years Edwards has flouted legitimate discovery requests by improperly withholding and concealing critical case-ending documents that fatally undermine his malicious prosecution counterclaim against Epstein in the Florida Circuit Court. The `privilege' assertions that Edwards has raised have never been ruled upon and it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to allow Edwards to hide behind this Court's November 30, 2010, Order (D.E. 1194) because, as Edwards well knows, the documents which Edwards refused to produce to Epstein in violation of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and his duties as an officer of the court, directly contradict misrepresentations that Edwards has repeatedly made to the trial court and effectively eviscerate his case against Epstein." Pages 4-5 "The e-mails that Link & Rockenbach reviewed were quite clearly not attorney-client privileged communications between Edwards and his three tort clients (M., E.W. or Jane Doe). Most significantly, numerous e-mails it reviewed were devastating to Edwards' case and contradicted both his sworn testimony and statements his counsel made to the court. As an officer of the court, Edwards took an oath to "never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact." Page 15 "In other words, any "work product" relating to Edwards' three clients, whose claims were settled with Epstein in 2010 should have been produced under the parties' agreement with the February 2011 production -- however, it now seems that only select items were produced, and any inculpatory work product was specifically withheld." 15 EFTA00808718