EFTA00591506.pdf
PDF not loading? Open directly | View extracted text
📄 Extracted Text (451 words)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800 AG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, etc., et at,
Defendant(s).
OMNIBUS ORDER IN REGARD TO UPDATE DEPOSITION OF THE PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon various Motions in regard to the
Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' request for update deposition of JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
as well as a Request to Produce served upon EDWARDS and Motions to Impose Sanctions
against JEFFREY EPSTEIN. The Court has heard argument and has reviewed the
pleadings and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Based upon the foregoing, it is
CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
The Defendant shall be entitled to take an update deposition of the Plaintiff
in regard to the specific issues identified and more specifically relating to public
statements made by the Plaintiff regarding his criminal activity, testimony dealing with
any claim the Plaintiff has waived his Fifth Amendment rights and/or has otherwise lost
his Fifth Amendment rights. The Defendant EDWARDS' Motion to Compel and Impose
Sanctions for Failure to Attend the Deposition is denied. In regard to the Request to
Produce submitted to the Defendant EDWARDS by the Plaintiff under certificate of service
the 7th day of April, 2011, the Court recognizes that there is a difference between "fact
work product", "opinion work product", and "contention discovery". "Opinion work
product" is almost never discoverable, "fact work product" is discoverable under limited
circumstances, and, according to the most recent pronouncements from the Fourth
District, "contention discovery" is allowed. Therefore, the Defendant shall respond to the
EFTA00591506
Request to Produce and assert any privilege in a privilege log, including any work product
privileges. The Defendant may do so in a manner which will not divulge or otherwise
disclose the nature of the documentation itself and if the parties cannot agree, the
documents shall be submitted to the Court for an in camera review to determine whether
the matters constitute "fact work product", "opinion work product" or merely "contention
discovery".
DONE AND ORDERED this /¶ay eifJuly, 2011 at West Palm Beach, Palm
l
Beach County, Florida.
L
DAVITS F. CROW
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Copy furnished:
JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409
JOSEPH L. ACKERMAN, JR., ESQUIRE, 777 S. Flagler Dr., 901 Phillips Point West, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401
JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE, 250 Australian Ave. S., Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
MARC NURIK, ESQUIRE, One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
GARY M. FARMER, JR., ESQUIRE, 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQUIRE, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000, Suffolk, MA 02116
EFTA00591507
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800 AG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, etc., et at,
Defendant(s).
OMNIBUS ORDER IN REGARD TO UPDATE DEPOSITION OF THE PLAINTIFF
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon various Motions in regard to the
Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' request for update deposition of JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
as well as a Request to Produce served upon EDWARDS and Motions to Impose Sanctions
against JEFFREY EPSTEIN. The Court has heard argument and has reviewed the
pleadings and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Based upon the foregoing, it is
CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
The Defendant shall be entitled to take an update deposition of the Plaintiff
in regard to the specific issues identified and more specifically relating to public
statements made by the Plaintiff regarding his criminal activity, testimony dealing with
any claim the Plaintiff has waived his Fifth Amendment rights and/or has otherwise lost
his Fifth Amendment rights. The Defendant EDWARDS' Motion to Compel and Impose
Sanctions for Failure to Attend the Deposition is denied. In regard to the Request to
Produce submitted to the Defendant EDWARDS by the Plaintiff under certificate of service
the 7th day of April, 2011, the Court recognizes that there is a difference between "fact
work product", "opinion work product", and "contention discovery". "Opinion work
product" is almost never discoverable, "fact work product" is discoverable under limited
circumstances, and, according to the most recent pronouncements from the Fourth
District, "contention discovery" is allowed. Therefore, the Defendant shall respond to the
EFTA00591506
Request to Produce and assert any privilege in a privilege log, including any work product
privileges. The Defendant may do so in a manner which will not divulge or otherwise
disclose the nature of the documentation itself and if the parties cannot agree, the
documents shall be submitted to the Court for an in camera review to determine whether
the matters constitute "fact work product", "opinion work product" or merely "contention
discovery".
DONE AND ORDERED this /¶ay eifJuly, 2011 at West Palm Beach, Palm
l
Beach County, Florida.
L
DAVITS F. CROW
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Copy furnished:
JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409
JOSEPH L. ACKERMAN, JR., ESQUIRE, 777 S. Flagler Dr., 901 Phillips Point West, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401
JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE, 250 Australian Ave. S., Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
MARC NURIK, ESQUIRE, One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
GARY M. FARMER, JR., ESQUIRE, 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQUIRE, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000, Suffolk, MA 02116
EFTA00591507