EFTA00317198.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15' JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff. vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually and L.M., individually. Defendant(s). NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO RESCHEDULING EDWARDS' MOTION TO DISOUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL COMES NOW Jeffrey Epstein, through the undersigned counsel, and files this Notice of Objection to Rescheduling the Motion to Disqualify presently set for October 25, 2012 and would state as follows: 1. The Court. ex mero motu, set a hearing on the pending Motion to Disqualify the undersigned for 25 October at 1:30pm. 2. After receiving notice of this hearing, the undersigned's secretary transmitted an email to Mary, attorney Scarola's secretary. on 11 October asking that they agree to request a reset of that date as the undersigned was already scheduled to leave town for a seminar with the National Association ofCriminal Defense Lawyers in New Orleans [see email conversation, attached hereto as Exhibit A and confirmation of its receipt]. Neither attorney Scarola nor his office dained to reply to that email. 3. The undersigned's assistant in fact called the Court's chambers to see if the hearing could be rescheduled to 22 October due to the above conflict as well as the fact that the undersigned was already scheduled to appear in West Palm Beach before Judge Colbath oncertain felony matters. Further, since this date was convenient as all parties in this matter previously cleared their schedules to appear before this Court on 22 October for attorney Scarola's punitive damages Motion in this case, which was withdrawn and cancelled on almost even date the undersigned had hoped it could Page 1 of 4 EFTA00317198 be heard then. However, the Court's Judicial Assistant advised such was not possible due to the length of time scheduled for the hearing. 4. About a week after the above referenced 11 October email noticing Haddad's conflict and without the courtesy of being advised of attorney Scarola's presently alleged conflict, his secretary sent an inquiry regarding whether the undersigned still had a conflict. 5. The response, some 30 minutes later by the undersigned's secretary, was to advise that the undersigned's conflict, the previously mentioned seminar in New Orleans also included a conflicting conference at the same time in New Orleans for his wife, a surgeon [ASPS annual convention], but she advised the secretary the undersigned was attempting to make later reservations [see email conversation attached hereto], since no response had been had to the earlier request. 6. Rather than acknowledge that attorney Scarola decided unilaterally to attempt to obtain a new date, and, advise that a call was placed to the "JA" [see email conversation attached hereto]. It was stated that the next available date for hearing was in early December. 7. The undersigned's secretary was advised attorney Scarola now asserted a conflict on 25 October with a hearing before Judge Brown in Gauger v. Dougan, and hence was seeking a reset of the disqualification hearing. 8. Judge Brown's hearing was set by Court Order of 18 September 2012. 9. Thus, from the date of II October attorney Scarola's office, and ipso facto, the attorney was well aware of that conflict and obviously attempted to "leave counsel hanging" until the last minute, despite being advised on 11 October of the undersigned's conflict with an out of state seminar. 10. Further, on II October, the undersigned. through his office, emai led attorney Scarola to sec if he would accept service of process for Edwards for this hearing and he agreed [see email conversation attached hereto], knowing, it is submitted, he had a conflict, and not bothering to extend the courtesy of advising the undersigned of the same. The undersigned also has another attorney/witness under subpoena. II. Edwards. through counsel, has noticed this matter for trial, and Mr. Epstein wants the undersigned to try the case. The issue of disqualification needs to be resolved for discovery to be conducted in a manner the undersigned, if trial counsel, directs. Page 2 of 4 EFTA00317199  12. Mr. Edwards moved to disqualify the undersigned; the undersigned filed a lengthy response with several exhibits refuting the allegations and setting forth facts and law that the undersigned submits was sufficient for outright denial of Edwards' barebones motion; at the very least an evidentiary hearing was mandated by the response. 13. Rather thanj ust acknowledge that, attorney Scarola caused the undersigned and other Broward co-counsel, both of whom have children in second grade, to make arrangements for their children so they could attend an 8:45am hearing just to hear attorney Scarola announce the obvious about the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. Realistically, this was not an unexpected move, but still inconvenient. 14. In thirty eight or more years of practice the undersigned cannot recall a single instance of not accommodating another lawyer, however attorney Scarola seems to think it proper to inconvenience other counsel without hesitation and not respond for almost a week when advised of conflicts by opposing counsel, thus the undersigned has no intention of accommodating such conduct, and objects to resetting the 25 October hearing. WHEREFORE Jeffrey Epstein opposes the Motion to reset the hearing. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was furnished via Email to all counsel listed below, this I8 day of October, 2012. FRED HADDAD, P.A. Tel: Fax• B FRED DAD Florida Bar No. 180891 Page 3 of 4 EFTA00317200  COUNSEL LIST Jack Scarola E . E-mail: Jack Ga ielac E-mail: Marc Nurik, Esa E-mail: Tonja Haddad Coleman. E . - ail: & Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esa. E-mail: nh _- Page 4 of 4 EFTA00317201