EFTA00793881.pdf

1 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE i THE COURT: Good morning. Have a seat. FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN 2 Thank you. AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case Ho. 502009CA040800XXXX303 3 Needless co say the recent barrage, as 4 opposed to flurry, of activity that has JEFFREY EPSTEIN, S transpired is of extreme consternation to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. 4 the court. It has caused me to have to SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; 7 engage in an inordinate amount of time to BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, 8 the exclusion of other natters that needed Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 4 my attention. 10 While the Court understands the gravity TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 of the issues that have transpired, it is 12 with extreme consternation and concern that DATE TAKEN: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 13 they have transpired on the eve of trial, a TIME: 10:07 a.n. - 12:08 p.m. 14 trial that has already been continued once, PLACE 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room IOD 15 matters that could have bean avoided had Nast Palm Beach, Florida BEFORE: Donald Hafolo, Presiding Judge Io timely action been taken. And the burden on 17 the Court to try to gat through what would 16 bo approximately four foot of documents is I0 extensive and onerous. I have done the boat This cause cane on to be heard at the time and 20 that I can to go through the materials, and place aforesaid, when and whore the following proceedings wore reported by: 21 I had some assistance, which I appreciate, 22 from ono of our staff attorneys, in trying Sonja D. Hall 13 to simply wade through the extensive, Palm Beach Reporting service, Inc. 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1001 24 complicated, and in many situations, years' West Palm Beach. FL 33402 25 old documents, some that go back almost a 2 4 1 I decade in terms of their age, and much of 2 APPEARANCES: 2 which I'm reviewing for the first time. 3 For Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: , So it's against that backdrop we will 4 LINK 4 ROCKENBACH P.A. • proceed. WO will hear the motion filed by 5 Epstein to remove the case from the trial By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE 6 By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE ^ docket relative to Florida Rule of Civil 9 For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: Procedure 1.440 first. SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART C e MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Your Honor. 8 SHIPLEY, P.A. With the Court's permission, believe it or 9 :0 not, there is ono agreed matter that we By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 10 By DAVID P. VITALE JR., ESQUIRE 11 would ask the Court to address first. By KAREN TERRY, ESQUIRE 12 I would like to introduce to Your Honor II 12 13 University of Utah Law Professor Paul For Non-Parties L.M.. E.M. 4 Jane Doe 13 HATCH. JAMES 4 DODGE, P.C. 14 Cassell, former Federal Judge Paul Cassell, 15 who will present that matter to the court. 14 Y 16 MR. CASSELL: Good morning, Your Honor. 15 17 Since this is an unopposed motion, it will 16 For Jaffrey Epstein: 27 18 just take 10 seconds to present. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER 8 WEISS, P.A. 19 I'm here pro hac vice, which I'm not 18 20 sure the Court is concerned about. Wo do By JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE 19 21 have a notion to seal the pleading and 10 22 related mails. It's unopposed. We ask li 22 23 that it bo granted. Temporarily sealed 23 24 until you roach a ruling. 24 25 THE COURT: That's fine. I will need 25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793881  5 7 an order in that regard, please. motion -- for the obvious reason, when he 2 All right, Ms. Rockenbach. • filed his motion to sot the case in the MS. RoCEENBACH: Thank you. Hay it above-styled cause of action for trial on please the Court. Good morning. May 24th, 2017. There is no dispute. Your Honor mentioned the barrage that And Mr. Edwards has actually pointed it 6 the Court has received. And it's the exact out, Mr. Epstein did not have a default words that I have on the top of my yellow against Mr. Rothstein. pad to describe the email flurry that has Contrary to what Mr. Edwards' 9 occurred within the last four days, which suggestion is, is to cure this issue -- 10 have truly made ma sick. I could not wait 10 THE COURT: Mr. Epstein did not have a 11 for this hearing to occur because of the 11 default against Mr. Rothstein. 12 fact that I know this Court does not need 12 MS. ROCKENSACE: Rothstein, thank you 13 any more paperwork. You need to see the 13 very much. 14 attorneys and understand the chain of 14 Contrary to what Mr. Edwards has IS evidence and how it was reprehensible that 35 suggested, there is no cure for a defective 16 either I or my law partner has been accused 26 motion to mat a cause for trial. You cannot 17 of stealing documents. That has made me 27 cure lt. IS sick. 28 There are some cases that have been 15 So I look forward to discussing the 29 cited. In fact, both sides. I cited Labor 20 privileged nature of the documents. And I 20 Ready from the Fourth District Court of 21 thank Hr. Cassell for being here today. 21 Appeal in my motion. And I understand 22 Your Honor, this is Mr. Epstein's 22 Mr. Edwards intends to rely upon it. But 23 motion to remove this case from the trial iS this was an authored decision by Judge 24 docket. It was prompted by Mr. Edwards' 24 Melanie May from the Fourth DCA. And that 25 motion to separate the trials, which was 25 case has great language to guide this Court 6 8 1 filed on Friday, I believe, for the firs: 2 time identifying that the fact that the 2 In that case Judge Hay wrote, •We do 3 default that Mr. Epstein has against • not quarrel with those cases or their 4 Mr. Roth was on the original complaint and 4 holdings.• 5 it no longer applied. 5 Your Honor, would the Court like a copy 6 Mr. Edwards pointed out to this Court • of this case to follow? and to Mr. Epstein -- he is absolutely THE COURT: Sure. 8 correct -- that Mr. Epstein's operative MS. ROCKEHBACH: Thank you. May I 9 complaint is the Second Amended Complaint to • approach? 20 which there is no default. :0 THE COURT: Yes. 21 What rule 2.440 tolls this Court to do 21 MS. ROCKEHBACH: I have a similarly 22 is to look at the time that Mr. Edwards 22 highlighted copy for counsel. 23 moved -- it's maybe a notice to set trial. 23 So in that case, the Fourth DCA has 24 In this case It was a motion to set cause 24 said, •We don't quarrel with genuine parts IS for trial -- was the case at issue. 35 of prior Fourth DCA case recognizing the 16 Rule 1.440 is ono of the most strictly 16 mandatory nature and compliance, strict 17 complied with mandatory rules of civil 17 compliance with Rule 1.440.• Judge May 10 procedure, which has boon recognized by the 14 wrote, 'we don't quarrel with Bennett versus 19 Fourth District Court of Appeal, and it's 19 Continental Chemicals.• 20 ono of those rare instances when a petition 20 However, we point out that none of 21 for writ of mandamus is appropriate when 21 those cases involve the case that has boon 22 it's not complied with. 22 pending at issue for years. Those cases 23 So we need to look at the pleadings and 23 were at issue. Moaning, they had a default. 24 not try this case twice. This case was not 24 They had an answer. They had a final 25 at issue when Mr. Edwards filed his 25 pleading. Twenty days had run. Another 30 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793882  9 11 days had run. Compliance with rule 1.440, pointed it out. 2 check the box. I researched it over the weekend. And 3 What Judge May said in this case, the on the very next business day, as soon as I 4 Labor Ready case, there was a Last minute possibly could, I filed the motion to remove 5 technical amendment to the complaint. And the case from the docket. 6 guess what, they went to trial. It was I then immediately moved to default. I 7 waived. have an order for the Court to sign to enter That case does not apply. Those facts 8 a default. Served it on Mr. Rothstein's 9 do not control. What you have before Your 9 counsel of record, Marc 'Balk. And we will 10 Honor is a -- no waiver, no waiver. You 10 then be ready once this Court enters the 11 have an objection that Kr. Edwards has 11 default, and presumably either party notices 12 pointed out, rightfully so, the case is not 12 it for trial in 20 days when it la then at 13 at issue. 13 issue, this Court can then set it no less 30 14 What I filed with the Court 14 days. That is the mandatory nature of the 25 immediately, simultaneously with the motion IS rule. 26 to romovo this case from the docket was a 26 I regret we're here, but this is a 27 proper motion for default against Rothstein. 27 strict compliance rule and we have to be at 28 There is no case that supports 28 issue. 29 Mr. Edwards' position to this Court about 29 And, Your Honor, the last thing either 20 severing a case In order to retroactively 20 side or this Court wants is to try this case 21 make it at issue. That doesn't happen In 21 twice. 22 the law. 22 THE COURT: Despite the representation, 29 The law says, in rule 1.440 in the 29 Ms. Rockenbach, that you made in your motion 24 Bennett case and the Gawker case from the 24 to continue, that Plaintiff and his trial 15 Second DCA, says that this Court has to look 25 counsel will not seek another continuance. 10 12 1 at May 24th -- and that is the salient date We will bo to ready to try the case in 90 2 that this Court must look at -- because 2 days -- that's when Mr. Edwards h aaaaa y moved this MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes. case and set the above-styled caused of THE COURT: -- quote, end quote. S action for trial, May 24th. 5 MS. ROCKEHOACH: Yes. 6 To bo clear, Your Honor, Mr. Edwards THE COURT: Why was that not pointed 7 did not move to sever at that time. This out to me upon a review of the docket, 8 case has boon pending for sane eight plus presumably a review of the docket, to 9 years. He has never before tried to sever. determine whether or not there was, in fact, 20 He, at that time, on Nay 24th, instead :0 a need to strike the trial notice at that 22 of pointing out the lack of at issue, and by 22 time, instead of gearing up, instead of 22 the way, you need a default, he moved the 22 spending an inordinate amount of court 29 case. He didn't oven move his counterclaim 29 resources, and now taking the position that 24 to set for trial, he moved the case. 24 because what in essence was dilatory conduct 25 And then further, to evidence IS on the part of the Epstein trial counsel 16 Mr. Edwards' intent to try this case 16 team, dating back to 2011, now constitutes )7 globally, main claim and counterclaim -- 17 reason for this case to be stricken? 10 which is appropriate, because the 10 Does that not sound inequitable? Does 19 counterclaim arises from the main claim -- 19 that not sound inappropriate? Does that not 20 he entered into a joint stipulation 20 sound specifically contrary to the quoted 21 indicating that that's how the case is going 21 language that I have just indicated here? 22 to be tried. 22 MS. ROCREHBACH: The quoted language as 23 So it was not Mr. Epstein who caused 23 you indicated, Your Honor, I made knowing 24 this last-minute, 11th-hour, oh, my gosh, we 24 that there was a default. 25 are not at issue, it was Nr. Edwards who 25 Mr. Edwards at that time never said Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793883  13 15 that default does not apply to the operative Mr. Epstein, as the Plaintiff, and his trial 2 complaint. And I never, over thought that 2 counsel, will not seek another continuance, 3 it did not. and bo will be ready to try the case In 90 4 THE COURT: Isn't that your days -- quoted language, pledging to this 5 responsibility? Isn't that the Court that otherwise this case is ready to 5 responsibility -- before you make that go -- and now we aro faced with this defect • statement to this Court and make the after all of the time and expense that has 0 representation that in light of the fact 8 been made here and spent hare, is really a 9 that you guys wore getting up to speed, that 9 travesty. 10 part of getting up to speed, would have bean 10 And while I say that tongue in cheek in 11 your responsibility to chock the adequacy of 11 terms of my resignation, this would -- it 12 the pleadings -- and as the case that has 12 would be astounding to me if that was, in 13 been cited -- at least ono of them indicate, 13 fact, the case. 14 the responsibility would have been to file a 14 HR. LINK: Your Honor, may I have 25 motion to strike the case -- strike that- A 25 permission to stand next to my partner on 26 motion to strike the notice setting trial or 26 this? 27 the trial order seasonably and timely so 27 THE COURT: Sure. 0f course. 28 that we would not have bean In this position le HR. LINK: Thank you. 29 in the first place? 29 Judge, I want to make sure that Cho 20 It would seem to me that you aro 20 record is clear. We are not asking for a 22 essentially creating the error yourselves by 21 continuance. The words that we gave you, we 22 not doing duo diligence. 22 aro standing by. This is not a motion for a 22 HS. ROCKENBACH: I wish I had soon it. 22 continuance. And the words that my partner 24 I know there was a default against 24 told this Court wore absolutely true when 25 Mr. Rothstein, and that ho was in federal 2$ she said them. They are absolutely true 14 16 1 prison. Meyer before did Mr. Edwards raise today. This la not us not being ready. 2 this issue that ho raised on Friday. 2 This a legal defect that cannot be cured. And by the way, Your Honor, the fact And I apologize to the Court for where that Mr. Edwards has raised it, ho is using we aro and what wo have done. And I'm 5 it as an excuse to sever the trial, which 5 afraid wo aro going to spend a lot more time a does not cure the defect, and is an together on this case. 7 appropriate manner to try this case in any But I want this Court to understand 8 event. that when my law firm says something, we 9 Mr. Edwards is the ono who pointed out moan it. We absolutely do. And wo aro not 20 the Improper defect, who could have raised :0 moving for continuance. 22 it much sooner. 21 But this case cannot go to trial with li Your Honor, I wish I had seen it. I 22 this deface, that's just the law. But I 22 wish I had soon it. And wo aro ready to try IS don't want this Court to think for ono 24 the case, but that's not the issue. 24 second that my partner or I would over 25 Hr. Edwards having raised the defect 35 mislead you or say something we didn't moan. 16 now, we could go through this trial, got a 16 I have bean accused of enough of that this 17 verdict for Hr. Epstein, and I believe we 17 week. 10 would, and then Mr. Edwards could appeal on 10 THE COURT: The point that I'm 19 the defect because he has raised it. 19 making -- nobody is accusing you. 20 So thorn is but one action that the 20 HR. LINK: Not you, Your Honor. I've 22 Court can take, and that is -- 21 boon accused of stealing documents and a 22 THE COURT: If that transpires, then I 22 crime. 23 quit. Than I am resigning my position. 23 THE COURT: I understand. 24 Because If I can't trust what wan written 24 HR. LINK: And that's the first time in 25 already hero by you, that you -- that 25 32 years. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793884  17 19 THE COURT: And I appreciate that. I 1 has drawn a significant amount of public 2 understand everybody's emotions are rather 2 interest and that has boon pending for -- 3 high, based upon the fact that all of this 3 MR. LINK: Nine years. 4 has transpired in such a short amount of THE COURT: Nine years is too simple. 5 time. Throe thousand and thirteen days, as of 6 But again, at the same tine, as I said today. 7 before, it seems to me to be highly MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 8 Inequitable -- and I understand your Your Honor, if I may. Because what is 9 argument is legal in nature -- but highly really important to ms, more than anything 10 inequitable to coma before the Court and 10 in this case, is our reputation. And I want 11 suggest that by way of dilatory conduct on 11 this Court to understand that we are not 12 the part of the Epstein trial team in not 12 moving for a continuance. 12 securing the technicality that we aro 13 THE COURT: I didn't say that was your 14 speaking about, and that is a default 14 position, which la why there is a 25 against an individual who will remain in 36 frustration hare. 26 prison for the rest of his life. Who is, to 26 Continuances aro discretionary under 27 my knowledge, based anecdotally, only based 27 the law. I have wide discretion. The Rule 28 on anecdotal evidence, is penniless and has 28 of Judicial Administration of this state -- 29 boon disgorged of any assets that he has and 29 and I do my boat to follow [ham. And you 20 that his family has, that somehow because of 20 have probably heard me at 8:4Ss make this 21 this technicality we're caused to put this 21 statoment, at least if not expressly, 22 case back and not try the case after, again, 22 implledly, that the trial courts of this 29 an inordinate amount of time and expense, 29 state shall have a firm continuance policy. 24 which is in essence taxpayer money, of which 24 How, while that may not be popular 26 this Court has been and continues to be a 26 amongst the bar when the Court enforces that 18 20 1 steward of those expenses and time. rule, it is nonetheless a rule of the 2 Again, coupled with the fact that it 2 Florida Suprome Court, and I do my best to 9 was represented to this Court that there • follow the law, despite popularity concerns, 4 would be no further delays and that the case 4 of which I have none. • would be ready to try. That tolls mo and HR. LINK: And wo appreciate that, Your • that represents to me, that counsel has done • Honor. 7 their due diligence. THE COURT: So -- Part of the motion said, •Me have hoard MR. LINK: Sorry, I thought you Hero 9 the Court loud and clear, now we• -- Link • done. 20 and Rockenbach •aro on the calm, with :0 THE COURT: I am not exonerating the II support Cram the Gunstor firm, and we will II movant here, by any moans. You're the first 22 not allow the same typo of conduct that 22 29 transpired earlier, which the Court was 19 MS. ROCKEHBACH: The movanta being 24 critical of, happen again.• 14 Edwards or Epstein? 25 That pledge to this Court means 36 THE COURT: I'm talking about Edwards. 16 something to this Court. That means that 16 Tho movant scatting the case for trial. )7 the docket has been assiduously reviewed, 17 MS. ROCKEHBACH: Understood. 10 and that everything else, short of gearing 10 THE COURT: Because Edwards has the 19 up for trial on the substantive issues that 19 same responsibility to the Court, to this 20 are before this forum, have been resolved, 20 community, to the taxpayers, to the public, 21 rectified, and that certainly wo are not 21 to my constituency, to assiduously review 22 going to be reaching back seven years on a 22 the docket, to ensure that the notice is 23 technicality to somehow thwart the efforts 23 being provided in accordance with rule 24 of the Court in trying to moved forward on 24 1.440. 25 behalf of both sides to resolve a case that 25 So by no moans am I exonerating anyone Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793885  21 23 here. It's just, again, a cumulation of And our concern with regard to having to go through what we have gone Rothstein arose when we wore informed of the 3 through together. Up to now, what I have witnesses that wore intended to bo called 4 tried to maintain, a civil, professional and ostensibly in the case against 5 efficient atmosphere despite the nature of Mr. Rothstein, which was a damage only claim 6 the case, despite pejorative comments that for a conspiracy to commit abuse of process, 7 were made earlier, which the Court has a claim, which if it had boon defended, 8 indicated will not be tolerated, and that would have been thrown out because there Is 9 has boon fo carefully by all no tort because of the litigation privilege 10 concerned, and I appreciate that very much. 10 for conspiracy to commit abuse of process, 11 But hero we are. I am familiar with 11 and there could not possibly, under any 12 the law. I am familiar with the statute 12 conceivable version of the facts, over be a 13 -- strike that. 13 claim for damages by Mr. Epstein in 14 I am familiar with the rule. I am 14 connection with that. 15 familiar with the comments to the rule. I IS Nonetheless, we aro told that there aro 16 am familiar with the case law pertaining to 26 going to be -- there's going to bo testimony 17 the rule. from Mr. Rothstein -- excuse mo. From 16 I will allow you time for rebuttal, if 28 Mr. Epstoin's victims in that portion of the 29 needed. 29 case, that Mr. Edwards is going to be called 20 MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 in that portion of case. 21 MR. LINK: Judge, thank you for letting 11 And what became apparent to us is, that 22 mo coma up hero. 22 an effort was going to bo made to use the 22 THE COURT: Mr. Scuola, again, I share 21 rouse of a claim against Rothstein as to 24 my frustration with you and the Edwards' 24 which we would have no standing to object, 25 legal team, as wall, as far as this 25 to insert into the record information that 22 24 conundrum. would never be admissible in the claim of 2 It Is disappointing that a firm of your 2 Bradley Edwards against Hr. Epstein. 3 stature, an attorney of your stature, of It became a particular concern to us, 4 which I have an abiding respect for all of because once a default is entered, the jury those who aro serving Choir clients in this is obliged to assume the truthfulness of the 6 case, that, again, the docket was not facts that are alleged in the complaint. 7 assiduously combed, and wo aro loft here No are obviously contesting those today with the vary thal possibility of this facts. So what was going to happen if Chore 9 case not being tried as scheduled. was going to bo a focus on the underlying 20 Your response, please. :0 allegations -- 11 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, air. Your Honor, 21 THE COURT: Against Rothstein? 22 let mo first of all point out that rule 21 MR. SCAROLA: Against Rothstein -- is 23 1.440 only permits a party to notice a is that the same jury was going to be told, you le matter for trial once at issue. 24 must accept those allegationsi and then they 15 And at the time our notice was filed, 35 were going to bo told, you can't accept 16 we wore not a party to the case that was 16 those allegations. And that obviously in 17 pending against Mr. Rothstein. And quite 17 and of itself created a need for us to 18 frankly, had no concern about that case. It 18 approach the Court and ask that those claims 19 was simply not a matter that we cared about, 19 be severed. 20 and quite frankly believed, for the reasons 20 No then determined that Chore was no 21 that Your Honor has referenced, that it 21 valid default over entered against 22 would never really be tried. 22 Mr. Rothstein. It didn't happen. And 23 This is a defendant who has absolutely 23 that's not something, again, that was ever a 24 no ability whatsoever to over respond to a 24 concern to us. 25 judgment against him. 25 I don't represent him. I never want to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793886  25 27 I represent him. I am uncomfortable about the 1 I.e., is there any law that supporta 2 idea of having to be involves Ln a trial in 2 the proposition that this would, in fact, be 3 which I might have to be raising objections 3 a separate action at this juncture having no 4 that would appear to bo objections on behalf 4 technical, even legal connection, between 5 of Rothstein to what's going on in that the claim brought by Epstein against 6 first portion of the case. Rothstein for some typo of conspiracy issue, 7 so we found out about the procedural and what is now a separate malicious e defect. Now the issue becomes, does Your ' prosecution claim -- albeit having its 9 Honor have the ability to address those q genesis in the original Epstein action -- 10 problems? And the answer to that question 10 but having nothing shared at this juncture, 11 is clearly yes. 11 either technically or legally, other than a 12 Severance of a permissive 12 case number? 13 counterclaim -- and there is no doubt about 13 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I think that 14 the fact that this is a permissive 14 that is flawless logic. Kt are here to try 15 counterclaim -- costs within the sound 35 our claim against Epstein on a fourth 16 discretion of the Court. 26 amended, quote, unquote, counterclaim that 17 SHE COURT: The question that I had 27 is really a separate action. 25 was, in reviewing the material, is this 38 But while I understand the Court's 29 still a counterclaim at all, albeit 29 reasoning and agree with it, we don't need 10 technically brought as same, because Edwards 10 to try to technically call this something II no longer is a defendant in the matter II other than what it was derived from, and 22 brought by Epstein? 22 that Ls a counterclaim. 29 The solo defendant, as I understand it, 29 Because the law is very clear that this 14 on a one-count issue is Rothstein. 24 Court has the discretion to savor for 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yos, air. I refer to St 25 separate trials a counterclaim. And that's 26 28 I as a counterclaim Only because thit's the I the second -- excuse me -- that's the Third 2 procedural posturing in which it arose. 2 DCA case that we cited to Your Honor, Turner 3 But, when a voluntary dismissal was i Construction Company versus ENE Contractors. 4 taken with regard to all claims against 4 And let mo hand -- let me hand the 5 Bradley Edwards, it's no longer a 5 other copy of that to Your Honor. 6 counterclaim. It's now our claim against e So we can assume -- without needing to 7 Mr. Epstein. reach the argument as to whether this is or 4 SHE COURT: And while it has its e is not still a counterclaim -- we can assume 9 genesis in the original action filed by that LC la a counterclaim. There is no 20 Epstein against Rothstein, Edwards and L.M., :0 question about the fact that Lt's a 21 the fact that simply because it has its II permissive counterclaim. 22 genesis there, as I was trying to think this 22 And we are in a position, whereas the 23 through among the other materials that I had 19 Third District Court of Appeal observed, it 14 CO review -- and they were substantial -- is 14 III within a trial judge's discretion to 35 that can it not be argued that the only IS sever a permissive counterclaim from the 16 connection between Rothstein's claim bought 16 main claim if there is no evidence of 17 against him -- strike that. 17 prejudice. 10 Epstein's claim brought against 10 And I was very pleased to hoar Mr. Link 19 Rothstein, the only connection that is even 19 and Ms. Rockonbach stand before the Court 20 arguable, is that, in fact, the Edwards' 20 and toll you, Me are ready for trial. 21 case had its genesis in the fact that 21 Because that's what they told you. They 22 Epstein originally brought the claim against 22 told you that Oink -- they told you they 23 Rothstein, Edwards and L.M., and then 23 would be ready back in December, and they 24 voluntarily dismissed the case at the eve of 24 aro telling you again, He aro ready for 25 summary judgment. 25 trial. Me aro not asking for a continuance. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793887  29 31 We only want to remove a technical defect THE COURT: Speak to me again about the 2 that might have us try this case twice. 2 issue whore, in a setting such as this, if 3 Well, I assure Your Honor, there could 3 both matters wore to bo tried together, the 4 not bo a clearer example of waiver on our position that your client would be In having 5 part of any technical difficulty than I am to prosecute his claim and In essence try • assorting to the Court right now that could potentially try to defend Rothstein at the • never and will never bo the basis for any same time. 8 appellate argument on our part. HR. SCAROLA: Yos, air. I think that 9 So, next, the Court goes on to say, •An that's really clear. The allegations 10 appellate court will not interfere with 10 against Mr. Rothstein are, even in this 11 procedural rulings of a trial judge, unless 11 later version of the complaint, basically 12 a party is deprived of a substantial right 12 identical to the allegations that were made 13 by the procedure employed.• 13 against Ns. Edwards. It is the complaint 34 So lot's look at the procedure 14 upon which a voluntarily dismissal was taken 25 employed, and what the unanimous Fourth 25 as to Nr. Edwards. 16 District Court of Appeal told us in Labor 26 So the jury is told in a default 17 Ready versus the Australian Warehouses 27 circumstance all of the allegations must be 16 Condominium Association. 28 accepted as true. And the only issues that 29 THE COURT: And again, the mule of me 29 arise are issues with regard to causation 20 wading through those documents, if you can 20 and damages. 21 hand me cases as we go along, I will 21 No are contending that there could 22 appreciate it. 22 be -- first of all we are contesting the 22 HR. SCAROLA: Absolutely. 22 underlying allegations. The jury is being 24 THE COURT: Thank you. 24 told accept them with regard to Rothstein. 25 HR. SCAROLA: This is our appellate 25 You can't accept them with regard to 30 32 1 court speaking through Judge Hay, as I said, Epstein, they aro contested. 2 an unanimous opinion joined In by Judge So that's the first problem. Ono jury Gunther and Judge Farmer. And I am looking being told to assume two different things. at the third page, the last page of this The other problem is, we are contending S copy, Your Honor, and it's the highlighted 5 that there could be no damages incurred by language. Mr. Epstein as a result of anything that • This is not a case where the case had went on with regard to a Fonti scheme in 8 never been at issue.• Nor Is this. •This which he was not an investor. 9 is not a case whore the parties did not have 9 MO are also contending nothing about 20 sufficient time to prepare.• Nor is this. 20 what went on at Rothstein, Rosenfoldt 4 li •This is not a case where anyone was 22 Adler can form the basis for a claim because 12 prejudiced by the technical amendments to 22 of the litigation privilege, absolute 23 the complaint.• Tharp they were talking 23 immunity of the litigation privilege. .4 about adding a punitive damage claim to the 14 So the defense -- excuse me the IS complaint. 35 plaintiff in the Epstein versus Rothstein 16 ▪ In situations whore the parties have 16 Case begins their case by putting on proof 17 received actual timely notice of the trial, 17 about how Mr. Epstein was alleged to have 10 they are precluded from arguing prejudice 10 boon damaged by these absolutely immune 19 based upon a technical violation.• 19 activities. 20 Nero we don't concede that there is any 20 What do I do at that point? I must 21 technical violation at all. But oven if 21 stand up every time any of that evidence is 22 there wore to be, the Fourth DCA says not a 22 being adduced before the jury, and I must 23 basis to disturb a trial court decision when 23 object on the basis that this cannot apply 24 there is no evidence of prejudice. And we 24 to Hr. Edwards. I'm in the position of 25 aro being told no prejudice. 25 defending Mr. Rothstein, of objecting on the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793888  33 35 causation grounds, of objecting that no singular count. 2 injury could have been caused, of objecting 2 HR. LINK: Yes, sir. 3 on the basis that this is all absolutely 3 THE COURT: Clearly that was done after 4 privileged information. And from the what was termed In quotation marks that I am 5 perspective of the jury, I am now defending using, a counterclaim filed by Edwards at a 6 this man who is sitting in federal prison time when Edwards was, in fact, a named 7 for 50 years. defendant in that particular action by And that simply creates extraordinary virtue of Epstein's decision through 9 prejudice to my client. It creates counsel, presumably, to no longer Include 10 confusion on the part of the jury, and It is 10 Edwards as a defendant in that action, the 11 absolutely unnecessary) and, indeed, under 11 terminology and the trappings that would 12 these circumstances procedurally precluded 12 otherwise go along with a pleading entitled 13 because there is no default against 13 counterclaim would dissipate, would legally 14 Mr. Rothstein. 14 disappear, in other words, had Nr. Edwards 25 So this Court has discretion to solve 36 and counsel decided to file a separate 26 the problem. You simply sever the 26 action. 37 permissive counterclaim or the separate 37 HR. LINK: Yes, sir. 28 action, and you allow us to proceed to trial 28 THE COURT: Mad this case gone away in 29 on a case that Nr. Epstein's lawyers have 29 its entirety -- let's say, just for the heck 20 said they aro ready to try. 20 of it, that Epstein decided to completely Si Let's do it. Let's go to trial. They 21 walk away from the lawsuit in its entirety, 22 said they aro ready. The Court has the 22 just walk away -- 28 ability to cure whatever obstacle 28 MR. LINK: Could have happen. 24 conceivably exists to trying this case. 24 THE COURT: -- as many do, okay, there 2$ My client finally deserves the 25 was no longer a counterclaim, it la now -- 34 36 opportunity after 3,000 whatever it is days and has really always boon, since the tine 2 to be exonerated publicly of the terrible 2 that Epstein -- strike that. 3 Charges that were lodged against him and That Edwards was no longer a defendant 4 hang out in the air and hang out in the In the case, a separate action, no longer a cloud and hang out in the Internet some nine counterclaim, technically or practically, 6 million point six hundred thousand times. because there was no pending claim against We would like our day in court, air. Edwards, at least as late as the Second 8 I am pleased to answer any other amended or whatever iteration of the 9 questions Your Honor ma