EFTA01070213.pdf

1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 2 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO.: 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG 4 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. 7 SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, 8 And L.M., individually, 9 Defendants. 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 12 HEARING BEFORE: HONORABLE DAVID F. CROW 13 DATE TAKEN: July 13, 2011 14 TIME: 10:34 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. 15 PLACE: Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 9C 16 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 17 REPORTED BY: Kathleen M. Ames, RPR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORANGE REPORTING 800.275.7991 EFTA01070213  Page 2 1 APPEARANCE S: 1 motion to dismiss on the, I guess, it's the second amandad 2 JOSEPH L. ACKERMAN, JR., ESQUIRE CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ESQUIRE 2 complaint. 3 3 MR. ACKERMAN: It's the amended complaint, be the OF: FOWLER, WHITE, BURKETT, P.A. 901 Phillips Point Mast second complaint. 4 777 S. Flaglor Drive Nest Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6170 5 S THE COURT: Which I've read in detail the motion. 6 MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQUIRE 6 Also, I think, pending is still the motion for punitive 7 OF: MARTIN MEINBERG, P.C. 7 damages in regard to the counterclaim and I don't think 20 Park Plaza, Ste. 1000 Boston, Massachu➢aaaaa 02116 8 8 there is any other motions pending in regard to the 9 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 9 pleadings, are there? OF: ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER 4 WEISS, P.A. KR. SCAROLA: There are not, air, no. 10 One clearlake Centre, Ste. 1400 10 11 250 Australian Avenue South THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I think I'm here to West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 11 12 12 talk about all of those so why don't we start with the APPEARING OX BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF 13 13 motion to dismiss because that kind of gets the thing 14 JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE rolling so start there. It's your notion, Mr. Scarola. 14 15 or: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART 4 15 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. With the SHIPLEY, P.A. 16 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Court's permission, may I address the Court from a seated West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 16 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF DEPENDANT, EDWARDS 17 position today? 17 18 THE COURT: Yea, I prefer you do that. 18 19 KR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Your Honor, this case 19 20 started out with a thirty page, seventy-nine paragraph, 20 21 21 five count complaint that read more like a press r aaaaaa 22 than a legal pleading. And was the source of substantial 22 procedural difficulty, as a con➢equence of the imprecision 23 23 24 with which an effort was made to embroil Bradley Edwards in 24 25 the Rothstein Portal schema. We have moved from that 25 Page 3 Page t 1 KR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Your Honor. 1 massive effuse press release to what is now a nine page, 2 MR. KNIGHT: Good morning, Your Honor. 2 single count abuse of process ca➢e. The state civil remedy 3 THE COURT: Okay. We're here on Epstein versus 3 for criminal practices count gone. The state RICCO claim Rothstein, et al. I want to thank the party that sent ma gone. The fraud claim gone. The conspiracy claim gone. 4 the whole list of motions and I appreciate it very much. S And a whole new abusive process claim has now boon as➢erted 6 And I did have a chance to go through moat of the stuff 6 very different from what w➢ mare looking at previously. 7 and, quite frankly, it's kind of hard to get my arms arou 7 Indeed, the only allegation that attempts to associate 8 this. There i➢ a lot to do. Ny thoughts is to first kind 8 Bradley Edwards with anything having co do with Rothstein of set-up a schedule to determine where we should go today' is a claim that appears in Paragraph 20, which says, 10 In term➢ of starting In one place and where we're going to 10 essentially, because so many MA personnel, Rothstein, 11 go. And seems to Mr the first place to start is try to get 11 Rosenceldt, Adler personnel, were involved in the 12 the pleading➢ in order, in terms of the notions that are 12 pro➢ecution➢ of what were, obviously, very meritorious 13 pending that have not been ruled on. Then I would like to 13 claims on behalf of th➢ child victims of Mr. Epatoin's find out, I mean, I read the, at least, the interim report criminal molestation, because ➢o many RBA personnel mare 14 14 15 from Judge Carney. Is It Judge Carney? And I want to find 15 Involved in the prosecution Edward, quote, •know or out what the status of all of that is. And then I guess rea➢onably should have known that hi➢, Epstein's case 16 16 17 the beat way to precool, unless somabody has a better 17 files, were being shown and touted to investors.• 18 alternative, i➢ to start with the motions in some type of 18 Now, no allegation that he knew or reasonably should 19 chronological order. But before that, to kind of get an 19 have known that they were part of a Ponzi schem➢ but on the 20 opening from both sides as to where they foal or why they 20 non ➢equitur assertion that becau➢e there wore a lot of foal the➢e various issues should be decided in their favor. nipple involved in these very important, very big cases. 21 21 22 I know they are varied but just to give ma some general 22 Mr. Edwards knew or reasonably should have known that background in terms of the ca➢e. semitone wa➢ trying to attract investor➢ to fund the 23 23 24 Having said that then, unless somebody has a better 24 pro➢ecution of these claims. 25 alternative, I would like to start with there is a pending 25 The first element of a motion to dismiss relating ORANGE REPORTING 800.275.7991 EFTA01070214  Page 6 Page . 1 allegation is ao what. A law firm has every right to raise 1 They don't nako that claim. 2 funds co prosecute legitimate claims on behalf of its 2 Paragraph 27 says the defendants embarked a schema to 3 clients. And if all Bradley Edwards know, which he didn•:. 3 interfere. with the non-prosecution agreenent, quote, •for but we must cake the allegations of the complaint as true. the purpose of upping the stakes of cho litigation." sou. 9 if all he know was, because there were a lot of people S the non-prosecution agreement is the agreement that 6 involved in cho prosecution of chose claims, he must hay., 6 Mr. Epstein encored into with the federal government : 7 known chat his files were Doing shown co and touted to 7 allowed hin, what we and our clients, or Mr. Edwards 8 investors, chat, certainly, can't Corn cho basis of any 8 clients contend, was an improper and sweetheart deal. cause of action. attempting co challenge unsuccessfully, at toast thus fa. 9 10 Lot's cake a look at what this conplalnt says Bradley 10 unsuccessfully, a non-prosecution agreement on the to, Edwards did chat constituted abuse of process. that the victim had a right under federal law to be 11 11 12 THE COURT: Lot me lust say off the top hero chat 12 consulted regarding that agroomonc, which right was never 13 I have ono probiom with the complaint because it lumps 13 afforded co then. Attempting co challenge a defendants together in numerous allegations without non-prosecution agreement could not possibly be abuse of 19 19 15 differentiating as to any of the defendants which ono did 15 process. what, if any, or all did. And co the extent that there might be soma assertion 16 16 17 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor has anticipated ono of 17 that this was cortious interference in an advantageous 18 the points that I would make and chat, clearly, is ono. 18 business relationship, the law is very clear, and I'm 19 But even assuning that all the defendants did all of the 19 prepared to cite the cases to Your Honor, if it's 20 things that are claimed to have been done by the 20 necessary. I don't know that this is going to to defendants, plural, lot's take a look ac what they say challenged. That unsuccessful interference is not 21 21 22 Bradley Edwards did. In the introductory paragraph they 22 actionable interference. A case calling Schaller versus say chat he is liable for abuse of process because of four American Medical International. So the allegations about 23 23 29 things. Ono, he engaged in unreasonable and vexatious 29 the non-prosecution agreement, I suggest, are an absolute 25 discovery within cho context of claims that aro never 25 nullity. They can't constitute an abuse of process. Page 7 1 assorted co have boon anything other than legitimate 1 Lot's go on to Paragraph 29, because that's whore 2 claims. So ono is unreasonable and vexatious discover, . 2 presumably an effort is made to set out what the 3 the introductory paragraph not specified in any way. 3 unreasonable and vexatious discovery la. Paragraph 29, The second is making unfounded allegations in Sub-paragraph One talks about asking three airplane pilots 9 lawsuits on behalf of his clients who had Lintel/nor. S Inflannacory questions during the course of the depositions 6 claims. 6 of those airplane pilots. Asking questions is not an abuse 7 The third is using improper investigative tools. 7 of process. Asking airplane pilot questions cannot 8 And the fourth, interfering with a non-prosecution 8 possibly have a causal connection co cho damage that is agreement. alleged by Hr. Epstein in this case. 9 10 Now, of those four generally described elements of 10 Curioualy the damages have also changed dramatically. wrongful conduct, the only category that could possibly We aro now cold that the damages constitute foes and costs 11 11 12 involve process, which moans the filing of a complaint, the 12 Incurred in the underlying litigation, any claim for which 13 filing of an answer to a complaint, the filing of some 13 was released in the underlying litigation. No will ask the 19 pleading or a subpoena. The only category that could 19 Court co cake judicial notice of the orders of dismissal of 15 encompass abuse of process arguably could be engaging in 15 the three underlying claims, which require the parties co unreasonable and vexatious discovery. And we're going co those cases co boar their own attorney's fees and costs. 16 16 17 look at what they claim the unreasonable and vexatious 17 Mr. Epstein, having stipulated as part of the settler., .- 18 discovery was in just a moment. 18 that he was going to boar his own foes and costs, cannot 19 Me know from Paragraph 17 chat the claims wore not 19 claim as danages, in this case, foes and costs incurred In 20 initiated while Mr. Edwards was an employee of RRA. 20 the underlying litigation, if they could possibly form the Paragraph 17 tells us that he brought these legitimate basis of any claim of liability in light of the broad 21 21 22 settled for vary large sums of money voluntarily by 22 litigation privilege that exists in the state of Florida. the plaintiff. He brought those claims with him to the law Lot no address that very brlofly. If I may approach 23 23 29 firm. So it's not the filing of the claims themselves 29 the bench, I want to provide the Court with a copy of the 25 that's anywhere alleged co have been an abuse of process. 25 Florida Supremo Court decision in £chevarrla, ORANGE REPORTING 800.275.7991 EFTA01070215  Page 10 1 E-C-H-E-V-A-R-R-I-A, vs. Echevarria. That is the most 1 conduct that is allege! to have occurred here in Paza.p.ip,, - 2 recent Florida Supremo Court decision addressing the 2 One, which isn't conduct involving process in any case. 3 litigation privilege. It contains an excellent discussle. 3 Paragraph 29, Two, notifying Epstein of an intent to of the Court's view of the scope of that privilege. And depose his high-profile friends. Tolling somebody I'm 9 4 5 upon review of that case Your Honor will find that the S going to depose your friends isn't process. Issuing a Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally hold that 6 subpoena is process. Serving the subpoena is process. 7 conduct that occurs in the course of litigation is COVeir:, Notifying somebody that you're going co depose his friends, 8 by the absolute litigation privilege. The Court finds, 8 that's not process. a matter of public policy, that it would be inappropriate Asking Epstein outrageous questions in his deposition, 9 10 to allow the assertion of independant claims for conduct 10 Sub-paragraph number Three, that's not process. 11 that occurs within the course and scope of litigation. 11 Sub-paragraph Four, requesting records from the federal 12 That there aro other available remedies, including ethics 12 government regarding communications between the government 13 complaints against lawyers involved in such conduct, 13 and Epstein lawyers. This is whore the tortious including contempt proceedings and the imposition of interference with the non-prosecution agreement is alleged 19 19 15 sanctions, which appropriately can control that conduct. 15 to have occurred because requests aro made to find out 16 And allowing the assertion of claims in independant actions 16 about communications between Epstein and the federal 17 for conduct that occurs in the course and scope of 17 government with regard to the vary criminal activity that 18 litigation would have an inappropriate and improper 18 forms the basis of the civil lawsuits that Mr. Edwards is 19 chilling effect. 19 legitimately prosecuting on behalf of the child victims of 20 So in light of that broad privilege, anything and 20 Mr. Epstoin's criminal activity, clearly, could not 21 everything that is asserted to have occurred in the context 21 constitute abuse of process. 22 of the underlying claims, such as asking three airplane 22 Paragraph Five, quite frankly, I just don't pilots inflammatory questions, first of all, does not understand. 23 23 29 involve an abuse of process. And, secondly, is privileged 29 Paragraph 29, Five, reads the representative of : 25 conduct. 25 trustee for RRA's bankruptcy stated that there are Page II Page 12 1 Next paragraph, Sub-paragraph Two of Paragraph 29. 1 thousands of documents involving RRA'a employees and 2 Notifying Epstein of an intent to depose his high-profile 2 government officials, including state and federal law 3 friends. 3 enforcement authorities relating to Epstein. What does THE COURT: Let me just ask you, I've not read, that mean in the context of this abuse of conduct claim 9 5 quite frankly, the Echevarria case but does it still star , S against Bradley Edwards? It just doesn't make any sen•, 6 for the proposition that for there co be a litigati- , 6 I can't respond to it because I clearly don't understand 7 privilege it must be related to the legal proceeding 7 It. 8 itself? 8 Six is requesting records from Dr. Bard who It is MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. claimed didn't treat Mr. Epstein. Moll, okay, so what. 9 9 10 THE COURT: It can't be something like -- okay. 10 guess ono way co find out whether he treated Mr. Epstein is MR. SCAROLA: If I wore to issue a subpoena to 11 11 to subpoena any records that he has about Mr. Epstein. 12 Mr. Edwards for the sole purpose of causing him to miss an 12 Subpoenaing records from a physician is not an abuse of 13 important business appointment where he was going to make a 13 process outside the scope of the litigation privilege. 14 lot of money and I'm requiring him co be in Court with no 19 Paragraph Seven, filing a second amended complaint 15 legitimate connection whatsoever to the litigation that's 15 alleging Epstein forced L.M. to engage in oral sex. F-.. 16 involved, that could constitute an abuse of process. Ono 16 of the litigation privilege clearly. 17 of the elements clearly is that it must be related to the 17 Attempting to depose celebrity airplane passengers. 18 litigation. But any conduct that occurs In relation to the 18 Clearly, within the course and scope of the litigation ig litigation is conduct that is protected by an absolute 19 privilege in the absence of any allegation that this . 20 privilege. 20 entirely unrelated to the prosecution of the claims again,: There is a discussion of the Levin, Middlebrooks case 21 21 Mr. Epstein, which allegation appears nowhere. No such 22 where the Supreme Court makes clear that we're not just 22 allegation appears anywhere. 23 talking about statements made in the context of litigation 23 Hine, directing third-party subpoenas be used - 24 but all tortious conduct that may be alleged. So it's a 29 obtain Epstein's prescriptions from pharmacies. 25 vary broad privilege. It covers exactly the kind of 25 Now, it doesn't say that the third-party subpoena'. ORANGE REPORTING 800.275.7991 EFTA01070216  1 Issued but if we can infer that they wore, this la cons..:' La4ards and continuo to assort his Fifth Amendment aIdf," .o 2 that clearly fails within the scope, of the litigation 2 to matters that aro relevant and material to the claims 3 privilege. 3 that ho is attenpting to prosecute. For, for all of those Paragraph 30 says that the defendants trespassed on reasons, and if the applicability of the sword/shield 4 4 Epstein's property and conducted surveillance of him. S doctrine is in any way challenged, I'll address that in my 6 without getting into the truthfulness of those al legation • 6 response. I don't know how it can be. But for all of 7 which must be taken as true, if the defendants trespassed 7 those reasons this is a complaint, an anondod complaint 8 on Mr. Epstein'a property, then chore nay be a cause of 8 which can, should and finally must be released. It must be action for trespass. Thor* la no cause of action for abuse dismissed. Thank you, Your Honor. 9 10 of process because somebody trespasses on your property. 10 THE COURT: Just ono second. Lot me road Thor* is no cause of action for abuse of process because something here. 11 11 12 somebody decides that they are going CO Surveil you. 12 HR. SCAROLA: The motion co dismiss roaches those 13 Paragraph 31 says that Mr. Edwards tried to plead a 13 arguments through the incorporation of all of the arguments RICCO claim. So what. In the summary Judgment. 14 14 15 And Paragraph 32 says that ho tried to frooso 15 THE COURT: You must be sone kind of psychic. Mr. Epstein's assets. So what. That does not constitute HR. SCAROLA: I anticipated that is whore the 16 16 17 abuse of process and to the extent it night be 17 Court was going. The motion to dismiss, Your Honor, 18 characterised as a use of process in the context of the 18 expressly incorporates the arguments that were made dun:.., 19 litigation on behalf of his child victim of Mr. Epstoin'a 19 the summary judgment hearing. And, clearly, one of the 20 repeated extensive criminal activity, it is covered by the 20 principal arguments that was made in the summary Judgment litigation privilege. hearing was an argument with regard co the sword/shield 21 21 22 There aro throe elements of danage that aro alleged. 22 doctrine. I apologise for having intruded upon your Foos and costs in the underlying litigation, which cannot thoughts. 23 23 24 constitute danages in this case. And the installation of 24 THE COURT: Go ahead. 25 an enhanced socurlty system, which presumably may have some 25 HR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Christopher Knight on Page 1S Page 1 1 causal connection to the trespass on Epateln's property and 1 behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. And let no back you up as to 2 the conducted surveillance of him, but, certainly, has 2 whore we aro and why we aro. when we came into this 3 nothing to do with any abuse of process. And the retention 3 lawsuit there VAS the original complaint, which Mr. Scarola of security personnel for Mr. Epstoin'a personal safety and talked about and Your Honor was alloying us to move forward 4 4 to protect his property. Sow, chore is no possible causa. S with discovery before we amended the complaint, which from 6 connection between the alleged and privileged litigation 6 day ono we said we will bo amending the complaint to plead 7 misconduct and Hr. Epstoin's desire for privacy. 7 the cause of action that we felt was appropriate. We tried 8 Another significant problem that this complaint taco 8 to go down chat angle but plaintiffs -- I mean, excuse MO, is that Hr. Epstein seeks to assort those claims by way o: the defendants asserted privilege to pretty much each and 10 an amended conplaint when ho has repeatedly and 10 ovary docunont which we will over be able to got our hands persistently refused to provide any relevant or material on. We did get sumo limited privilege logs, which will 11 11 12 discovery as a consequence of the assertion of his Fifth 12 cone up in part of my argument, which is talks about . 13 Amendment privilege. We have previously cited to Your 13 the frivolity of this motion to dismiss. If they want to Honor a nunbor of cases, a substantial body of case law move for a notion for summary Judgment on down the lino if 14 14 15 relating to the sword/shield doctrine. Hr. Epstein is 15 they have the facts after xy got the document, that's a seeking affirmative relief. I don't challenge the validity horse of a different color. 16 16 17 of his assortion of Fifth Amendment privilege. Thor* la no 17 But you asked us to -- first, let's take the 18 doubt in my mind that ho faces the potential of additional 18 discovery. Unfortunately between Hr. Rothstein not 19 criminal prosecution. There aro now claims that 19 able to be deposed, which we, of course, need to talk to 20 Mr. Edwards himself has placed the defendants on notice 20 Mr. Rothstein about what Mr. Edwards' involvement was, and that ho is about to filo so there is no doubt about the their blanket assertion of privilege -- 21 21 22 fact that Hr. Epstein faces additional potential criminal 22 THE COURT: Let me back up. I don't -- I liability and has a right to assort his Fifth Amendment directed you co do discovery. I think I questioned why 23 23 24 privilege against self-incrimination. But the case law is 24 there was never a motion to dismiss co the original 25 absolutely clear he cannot coda to this Court, sue Bradley 25 complaint and I said but this is the complaint we have t, ORANGE REPORTING 800.275.7991 EFTA01070217  6 Page 18 Page , 1 dual with. And I can't tell from reading this thing whet 1 the complaint. And if there are, in fact, special damages, 2 in the world cho cause of action is and it created a lot of 2 I think they have to be pled, as conpared to general 3 problems In corns of what the scope of discovery was. 3 damages. So I don't know whether you're asking for and it Without knowing what you are suing for it's vary difficul' makes a big difference, ultimately, what, what -- if we get 4 5 to figure out the scope of discovery and that's why I S to the point of the discovery issue -- what the defendants 6 directed Mr. Ackerman to file an amended complaint so wo 6 can get Cron the plaintiff and vice-versa. I moan, if 7 would be able co focus in on what is discoverable, what 7 you're claiming damage to reputation, lost profit, I don't 8 isn't, what cho cause of action is and that sort of thine. 8 know what Sc is you're claiming. I don't know what MR. KNIGHT: Correct. And then vo wont forward Including but not limited to moans, quite frankly. 9 10 with what we had to date, which is a reasonable basis for 10 HR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, lac no break these down. abuse of process claim which has boon nade. The complaint THE COURT: Okay. 11 11 12 on its four corners meets all the standards which are 12 HR. KNIGHT: You brought up cho subject early on 13 required. And chose are the cases that aro already Cited 13 about lumping cho defendants together and there was an in our briefing and the response, is cho Donna Della case, early paragraph which did so. The Paragraph 29, which Hr. 14 14 15 which is the Sch DCA case out of 1987, and goes through the 15 Scarola wont through, is going through allocations relative various factors, which leads to what I Rust give you, which to Mr. Edwards and if it needs to be divided out relative 16 16 17 is a little bit of background so that you have it. 17 to Rothstein and Edwards, we will do so as it relates to 18 Hr. Epstein came over to the Rothstein firm with three 18 damages. Tho lam under abusive process is oven nominal 19 cases. Excuse no. Mr. Edwards. Hr. Edwards came over to 19 damages aro enough to survive for a Cause of -- 20 the Rothstein firm with three of those files. After he got 20 THE COURT: Don't misunderstand, Counsel, I don't to the Rothstein firm Mr. Rothstein, Hr. Edwards, and disagree with chat proposition that you allege damages that 21 21 22 others used cho cases to pump up the Ponzi scheme. Tho 22 you claim are a result of this. What I'n concerned about documents chat we need and the privilege logs -- Is you have thrown in the kitchen sink in that, which is 23 23 24 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse ma, Your Honor, I'm sorry. 24 included not Salted, does that moan you're claiming other 25 THE COURT: That's not even alleged. 25 damages or not claiming other damages? I don't know what Pogo 19 Paco .:,: 1 HR. SCAROLA: It is not alleged. And I cannot that means. 2 allow counsel co make those kinds of statements in open 2 MR. KNIGHT: At this time we're claiming the 3 court in the presence of the press and leave them 3 three areas of specified damages which we wont into but the unchallenged. That's exactly what has repeatedly von.- reason that catch-all is in there is goes back to this 4 5 In this case co besmirch Mr. Edwards' reputation. S whole Issue relative to the documents that vo have boon 6 THE COURT: Let me stop you. What I'm 6 unable to receive. Wo believe that chore will be other 7 about with this complaint, okay, and what concerns me is damages that naybo would to asserted at chat time. If Your 8 that there aro allegations that the defendants did this, Honor is saying what he would rather have us do is once we the defendants did this without specifying who did what to gat the documents, amend again, I fully understand. We can 9 10 whom and why. It seems CO me if you are going to Sue 10 do so. But at the saw time we don't want to be precluded Mr. Edwards or anyone else, for that natter, you need to be from being able to move forward with our cause of action. 11 11 12 specific as co what he did or what you accuse him of before 12 The abuse of process cause of action is spelled out in 13 I -- I diginia9 routinely complaints like this, which 13 all four corners under the Della Donna decision and, also, generically say the defendant did sonaching without the SCI Funeral comments relevant to lc, which have boon 14 14 15 specifying who did what to whom and why. Because it does 15 provided in cho earlier briefings. Hero at the motion to not spell out what your claims are I don't know what dismiss stage chat is where we, that's what the Court needs 16 16 17 Mr. Rothstein did. What Mr. Edwards did. Or -- and you 17 to look at, as we have discussed. The areas relative to 18 also say and others. Who? I don't know who they are. 18 litigation privilege, which Mr. Scarola went at length 19 And the ocher problem I have with lc, aside from, I 19 into, deals with tortious interference causes of action and 20 think there aro soma other issues, but your prayer for 20 do not deal with abuse of process. It would be nonsensical damages is specific as to some things but also has that, for abuse of process to have a privilege because, 21 21 22 that, that, phrase that, that we all, you know, perk up our 22 therefore, you will never to able to bring a cause of ears on, including but not limited co, which loads ma to action for abuse of process. 23 23 24 believe there is something else there chat you're claiming 24 THE COURT: Let me disagree with you. I th: 25 in terms of danages, which is not, in fact, spelled out in 25 that the litigation privilege would go co any process ORANGE REPORTING 800.275.7991 EFTA01070218  Page 22 1 served in the litigation that's relevant to the litigation. that is abuse of process. This is at the point or 2 It doesn't give you the right to go out and subpoena the 2 allegations without us being able to get discovery. The 3 president of the United States in a case just to get, for 3 allegations we have put into Paragraph 29 in specificity, 4 ➢Mp rea➢on, unrelated to the purpo➢e➢ of the litigation. especially, when you gat into Paragraph FOOT under, under 4 5 So, I mean, there is, I read thane cane➢. Unless this hi - 5 29, which deals with Mr. Edwards going to the Court 6 changed the law. At leant, it allow➢ abuse of process In 6 relative to what should be something relating to the three 7 civil litigation if, in fact, the processes aro not for 4 7 lawsuits that he has, when what it really is undermine the 8 legitimate purpose. 8 non-pro➢ecution agreement. any is that relevant to abuse HR. KNIGHT: If the unrelated areas are -- of process? Hell, all that is being used for is to find a 9 10 THE COURT: His point was how can these be 10 way to ramp up our client relative to other worries, which 11 Illegitimate, I think is what his point was. are unrelated to the prosecution or those individual victim 11 12 KR. KNIGHT: If that's his point but what I was 12 canon so that he ands up having to be in a situation where 13 tilting he was using the cases of tortious inte1ference. 13 he has to pay exorbitant dollars, which othorwlse would THE COURT: I don't think It matters what multiply what the amount of the actual value of those 14 14 is tort it is. I think the litigation privilege applies 15 underlying cases otherwise would be. The complaint itself 16 whether it's libel, slander, tortious interfe2ence, you goes through all that is required under Dona Donna. 16 17 know, abu➢e of process, malicious prosecution, all of thane 17 THE COURT: I presume in those underlying canes 18 there is a litigation privilege as➢ociated with that. And 18 there were Claims of punitive damages; SO that correct. 19 it's a natural privilege. That's how I understand the law. 19 KR. KNIGHT: There are claims of punitive 20 I may be misquoting it but that's what I understood the law 20 damages, correct. 21 is. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 HR. KNIGHT: Understood. And the allegations 22 HR. KNIGHT: By the same thing, even looking into 23 which are in Paragraph 29 go into some of those areas which that, the efforts to freeze assets, things like that. 23 24 are outside, including Mr. Edwards' own deposition. I 24 There wan no indication at any paint that Mr. Epstein would 25 mean, in his lawsuit, his clients wore never on these 25 be unable to cover whatever the compensatory damages and, Page 23 Page 2' 1 airplanes yet they went forward and took the depositions of 1 if punitive damages were ever to be allowed, any type of 2 these pilots, et cetera, on the airplane causing excess 2 punitive award. All of this was done to ramp up these 3 fees. And really what this was