EFTA00614418.pdf

IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AD Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ORDER ON MOTION TO REASSIGN AND/OR TRANSFER THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Motion to Reassign and/or Transfer, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that. Defendant's Motion is herebyeatat)tedi denied DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, Florida, this day of , 2009. tr:AG G its O ) .1 •s--• tAtin Beach, it Our' c C•T David French Vr- Circuit Judge Copies furnished: TTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., and BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates, JAY HOWELL, ESQ., Jay Howell & Associates, PA.. and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger EFTA00614418 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028051WXMB AD Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ORDER ON MOTION TO REASSIGN AND/OR TRANSFER THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Motion to Reassign and/or Transfer, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion is hereby gamed/ denied DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courth st Palm Beach, Florida, this day of , 2009SAGOO et -, IREml VA r e `0 • David French' . Circuit Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., and BRAD EDWARDS, ESQ., Brad Edwards and Associates, LLC HOWELL, ESQ., Jay Howell & Associates, PA, and JACK A GOLDBERGER, ESQ., Atterbury Goldberger EFTA00614419 g e sz LEOPOLD—KUVIN, CONSUMER JUSTICE ATTORNEYS April 10, 2009 Fax and Mail Robert Critton, Esq. Michael Pike, Esq. Burman Critton, et. al. MEM Re: inv. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Mike and Bob: I recently received your Motion to Compel directed to Plaintiff's responses to Request to Produce. With respect to request #2, I'm not sure what you'd like my client to do, but she does not have any additional bills to produce to you at this time. She is only required to produce what she has, and she has done that. Additionally, you have already served subpoenas for these records, so I'm not sure why you'd waste time on this part of your motion. As for request #7, I will be happy to supplement this request by attempting to obtain any c*L of insurance cards that she may have for her health insurance. I will also make sure that my MI -Plaintiff provides copies of any "union employment identification cards." With respect to request #17 and #18, much like the Interrogatory you asked in this regard, it is objectionable and I will see you at hearing. Furthermore, if the request did not already state so, the response even absent these objections is none. With respect to request #22, this is incredibly overbroad and invasive. Having said that, if you are willing to allow me to inspect every and all computers utilized by Jeffrey Epstein at the same time that you inspect my client's computer, I may be able to come to some agreement. I don't expect you'll allow this. I find to it extremely hard to understand how you're going to be able to argue to the Court that my client's entire computer should be subjected to your inspection while you are unwilling to do the same. Furthermore, the computers in my client's home are used, and have been used, by numerous individuals, including but not limited to family members, business associates and friends. Obviously, each of these individuals and corporations have independent rights to privacy which cannot be infringed. RIOPOICINUVrt.Com CRASHWORTHINESS • MANAGED CARE ABUSE • CONSUMER. CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH EFTA00614420 April 10, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Finally, your completely irrelevant comments from public websites of random individuals, including postings of other girls which may have been molested by your client, are completely irrelevant. While we are commenting on websites, my client happened to notice on your firm's website that you have resolved sexual harassment cases for $1.5 million. If you would like to use websites as a guide, maybe we can discuss resolving this case without the need for these discovery disputes. I agree with your statement contained within the motion that states that "Plaintiff's communions and interactions with others is discoverable and admissible." However, the proper to go about this is by taking depositions, not by digging through her personal computer. If you would like to amicably resolve this matter absent a hearing, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. T. KUVIN STK:mlb EFTA00614421 LEOPOLD-KUVIN. CONSUMER JUSTICE ATTORNEYS April 10, 2009 Fax and Mail Robert Critton, Esq. Michael Pike, Esq. n Critto et. al. Re: v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Mike and sob: I recently received a copy of your Motion to Compel dated April 8, 2009. Please be advised that we turn our fax machine off promptly at 5:15 p.m. every evening. As for the content of the motion, I will agree to consult with my client to determine whether or not she can provide anymore information with response to Interrogatory #2. With respect to Interrogatories #15 and #16, I am not sure what additional information you require. My client has clearly advised, both in her responses, and in reference to the Complaint, that she was only over at the house on one occasion, and she does not remember the exact date. While a Complaint is not a sworn response, by referring to the Complaint in answer to Interrogatories, my client has hereby confirmed and verified, as well as sworn to, the relevant allegations as referenced in the Complaint by signing off on her answers to Interrogatories. Finally, with respect to Interrogatory #19, disgusting and beneath all human decency. I Should you have any additional questions or your convenience. your Interrogatory is not only objectionable but will see you in Court on this one. concerns, please do not hesitate to give me a call at leopokkAire.com CRASHWORTHINESS • MANAGED CARE ABUSE • CONSUMER.CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH EFTA00614422 k BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP I. MICHAEL BURMAN, PA., GREGORY W. COLEMAN, PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON, 111., PA' BERNARD LEBEDEKER MARK T. LUTTIER, P.A. JEFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL 1. PIKE HEATHER McNAMARA RUDA 2 FLORIDA BOARD CERTIFIED CVO-TRIAL LAWYER Sent by Fax and U.S. Mail Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law firm P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP April 13, 2009 Re: Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Case No. 09-80469-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON ADELQUI.LBENAVENTE rmemeom. I INVBSTIOMOR BARBARA M. NkKENNA ASHLER STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RUA H. BUDNYK OP COMPEL Dear Sid: Please be informed that MIEM subpoenaed deposition in the Epstein case on April 16th, 2009 is hereby cancelled. RDC/clz cc: Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Rob rt D. Critton, Jr. .A•W'Y'EeR•S EFTA00614423 J. MICHAEL BURMAN. PA! GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. PA! BERNARD LEBEDEKER MARK T. LUTHER. PA. JEFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER MCNAMARA RUDA FLOIGOA BOARD anrrusso CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER a eli-72-\•--,.\ \ '- ? - : 11.-,-.75C..-.:ca...., -4-•-1/4) , .... . - BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BY HAND DELIVERY Judge Donald Hafele Fifteenth Judicial Circuit April 13, 2009 ADELQUI J. BENAYENTE PARALEGAL/ INVESTIGATOR BARBARA M. WHENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARINO BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK OP COUNSEL Re: Illv. Jeffrey Epstein, et al. Case No. 502008CA037319XXXX MBAB 4/17/09, 11:30 a.m. — special set for 30 minutes Hearing on Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement, and to Strike Directed to Plaintiffs Complaint Dear Judge Hafele: Enclosed please find a copy of the case law and Florida Statutes cited in Defendant Epstein' otion to Dismiss, For More Definite Statement, and to Strike Directed to Plaintiff .'s Complaint relating to the above-captioned hearing. We have previously sent you Defendant's Motion and Plaintiffs complaint. Also enclosed is Notice of Additional Supplemental Authority in Support of the above-mentioned Defendant, Epstein's Motion to Dismiss. Robed RDC/clz Enclosures cc: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. and Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Jack Goldberger, Esq. Critton, Jr., Esq. •A•W•Y•E •N•S EFTA00614424 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. Defendants. CITED CASES AND FLA. STAT. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, FOR MORE DEFINITE STAEMENT, AND TO STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So.2d 360, 374 (Fla. 2005) 2. Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ferre, 636 F.Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) 3. Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) 4. Lay v. Kremer, 411 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) 5. Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).; 6. American Diversified Ins. Srvcs., Inc. v. Union Fidelity Life Ins., 439 So.2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) 7. Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 246 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971 8. Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc. 353 So.2d 547 (Fla. 1977). 9. Snipes v. West Flaciler Kennel Club, 105 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1958) EFTA00614425 • v. Epstein Page 2 10. Buchanan v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 230 So.2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1969) 11. Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366, 373 (2nd Cir. 2003) 12. Fla. Stat. §772.101, et seq., commonly referred to as Florida "RICO." EFTA00614426 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT, EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS, MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, AND TO STRIKE DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER RICO 1. Jackson v. Bellsouth Communications, 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004), cited in Fla. Stat. 772.102, annotated, (analysis applied to claims under the Federal Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997) 4. Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00614427 v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224 (3d Cir. 2007). 8. Petrol LTD v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). DIRECT INJURIES MUST BE SUSTAINED TO PROPERLY ALLEGE RICO 1. O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc. 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d (DCA 1992). 2. Palmus Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 881 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). 3. Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 906, 908 (1191 Cir. 1998). 4. Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366, 373 (2d Cir. 2003). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq.,Leopold- Kuvin, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, Co-Counstaerfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, on this / Sia of April, 2009 & COLEMAN, LLP By: Robert D. Cr Florida Bar Michael J. Pik Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00614428 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA037319)COO(MB AB Plaintiff, v. Defendants. DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, AMENDED OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION FROM NON-PARTY, YELLOW CAB Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Rule 1.351, Fla. R. Civ. P., hereby objects to the Notice of Production from Non-Party directed to Yellow Cab and proposed subpoena, and amends the objection to the production from Non-Party, Yellow Cab (all attached as Composite Exhibit "A") and as grounds set forth, would state: 1. Plaintiff, ■ in her answers to interrogatories alleges she was at the home of Mr. Epstein on one occasion. Answer No. 15 to interrogatories. Within interrogatory 15, she indicates that "the cab driver (identity unknown) drove.. and her friend, MEN the Defendant's home." In her complaint, she alleges that in 2005, she was at Mr. Epstein's home on this one occasion. 2. Therefore, if the purpose of the subpoena is to determine the exact date that ■ andi were at the home of Mr. Epstein on that one occasion, the subpoena should be so directed to Yellow Cab, i.e. during the year 2005, do you have EFTA00614429 v. Epstein, et al. l age 2 any evidence of having carried passengers,. and to the home of Mr. Epstein? 3. Whereas the duces tecum states: "You are required to produce a true and accurate copy of any and all documents of whatever kind ' ' ispatch form (sic) or to for the years 2001 to the present." How is it relevant or material or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding Yellow Cabs that may have been dispatched toMEM or at any time other than 2005 for one specific trip? 4. Additionally, who may have traveled to or from Mr. Epstein's home during a specific period of time, other than the Plaintiff an' is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as personal information to third parties who have a right to privacy. 5. This is strictly a "fishing expedition" unrelated to any aspect of this case. A similar Request to Produce was served in the caa v. Jeffrey E. Epstein and Case No. 502008CA025129XXXXMB Al, in front of Judge Garrison. A copy of the objection to the Notice is attached as Exhibit "B" and Judge Garrison's Order sustaining the objection is attached as "Exhibit "C". 6. Discovery must be related to the subject matter of the pending case. State Farm v Parrish 800 So. 2d 706 (5th DCA 2001). Exhibit "D" WHEREFORE, this Defendant moves this Court for an Order sustaining its objection and quashing the subpoena as written and requiring the Plaintiff, if appropriate, to serve a very specific subpoena. EFTA00614430 IIII v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 13th day of April 2009: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. ISM Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein OLEMAN, LLP Rob rt i n on, r. Flo da Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00614431 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JE an Defendants. DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION FROM NON-PARTY, YELLOW CAB Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 1.351, Fla. R. Civ. P., hereby objects to the Notice of Production from Non-Party directed to Yellow Cab, served March 24. 2009. Pursuant to the rule, a subpoena shall not be served on Yellow Cab under this rule, but relief may be obtained only through Rule 1.310, Fla. Fla. R. Civ. P. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 31st day of March , 2009: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein effini 'le- EXHIBIT "An EFTA00614432 v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP Robe Critton, Jr. Flo a Bar #224162 Mi ael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00614433 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and■ Defendant. NOTICE OF PRODUCTION FROM NON PARTY YOU ARE NOTIFIED that after 10 days from the date of service of this notice, if service is by delivery, or 15 days from the date of service, if service is by mail and if no objection is received form any party, the undersigned will issue or apply to the Clerk of the Court for issuance of the attached subpoena directed to Yellow Cab, who is not a party and whose principle address a to produce the items listed at the time and place specified in the subpoena. HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, thisdday of March, 2009 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq.,/Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Douglas M. McIntosh, Esq., McIntosh, Sawran, Peitz & Cartaya, Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael I Pike, LEOPOLD—KUVIN, PA. By: Florida Bar No.: 089737 EFTA00614434 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB vs. Plaintiff, EPSTEIN and Defendant. Florida Bar No: 089737 PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION RECORDS MAY BE MAILED THE STATE OF FLORIDA: TO: Yellow Cab, YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at Leopold—Kuvin, P.A., the offices of undersigned counsel, on April 24, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., and to have with you at that time and place the following: DUCES TECUM: You are to produce a true and accurate copy of any and documents, of whatever kind and nature, evidencing Yellow Caps dispatched form or to III for the years 2001 through the present. These items will be inspected and may be copied at that time. You will not be required to surrender the original items. You may comply with this subpoena by providing legible copies of the items to be produced to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena on or before the scheduled date of production. You may condition the preparation of the copies upon the payment in advance of the reasonable cost of preparation. If the cost of production will exceed $50.00, LEOPOLD-KUV1N, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardena, Florida 33410 (561) 515-1400: (561) 515-1401 (tlicalmik) EFTA00614435 please contact our office for authorization to proceed with production. You may mail or deliver the copies to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena and thereby eliminate your appearance at the time and place specified. THIS WILL NOT BE A DEPOSITION. NO TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN. If you fail to: (1) Appear as specified; or (2) furnish the records instead of appearing as provided above; or (3) object to this subpoena, you may be in contempt of court. You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorney, and unless excused from this subpoena by this attorney or the court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed. Dated on EICER T. MJVIN, ESQ. Page 2 of 2 EFTA00614436 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA025129)O3OCMB AI Plaintiff, v. Y E. EPSTEIN, and Defendants. DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, OBJECTION TO NOTICE AND AMENDED NOTICE OF PRODUCTION AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION DIRECTED TO YELLOW CAB Defendant, JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein") by and through his attorneys, hereby files his objection to the Notice and Amended Notice of Production and Subpoena directed to Yellow Cab, attached as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", and as grounds therefore, would state: 1. The Plaintiff= in her answers to interrogatories, alleges that she was at the Defendant's home on one occasion in September of 2005. In response to interrogatory #5, she stated under oath "I arrived at approximately 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. and left at 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.". The only other person who was in the home at the time were Mr. Epstein, and a cook in Mr. Epstein's kitchen. She further stated that she was brought to the home la 2. The complaint is a two-count complaint, Count I directed to Mr. Epstein which alleges sexual battery for having touched the Plaintiff, and Count II against Ms. EXHIBIT "8 " EFTA00614437 v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 3. There was no suggestion whatsoever in the answers to interrogatories nor in the complaint that "Yellow Cab" has some involvement in this case. 4. On the other hand, the attorneys for also have another case styled C.M.A. v. Jeffrey Epstein andESIM, Case No.: 08-CV-80811-Marra/Johnson. It appears that the Plaintiff,■ or her attorneys are attempting to do discovery in C.M.A through the state court case. 5. Whatever trip receipts, logs, information data and/or records involving pick ups and deliveries to and from Mr. Epstein's home in Palm Beach from 2001 through 2006, when the Plaintiffs one time incident occurred in September of 2005 when she was taken to the home by is overly broad, not relevant, nor material nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Additionally, who may have traveled to and from Mr. Epstein's home during that time frame is personal information to third parties who have a right to privacy. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 11th day of February , 2009: Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Bamhart & Counsel for Plaintiff Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00614438 v. Epstein, et al. Page 3 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTfER •e Florid. gar #224162 Mich. J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein) EFTA00614439 7 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2008CA025129XXXXMB Al Plaintiff(s), vs. E. EPSTEIN and Defendant(s). NOTICE OF PRODUCTION FROM NON-PARTY TO: ALL COUNSEL ON THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST YOU ARE NOTIFIED that after ten (10) days from the date of service of this Notice, if service is by delivery, or fifteen (15) days from the date of service, if service is by mail, and If no objection Is received from any party, the undersigned will issue or apply to the Clerk of this Court for issuance of the attached Subpoena directed to the following individual(s) to produce the items listed at the time and place specified in the Subpoena. 1. EXHIBIT EFTA00614440 Mrni Epstein, et al se No. 50 2008CA025129)0000AB Al Notice of Production from Non-Party Page 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mall to all Counsel on the attached list, this V day of February, 2009. Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 189440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Shipley, P.A. EFTA00614441 A.C. v. Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2008CA025129XXXXMB Al Notice of Production from Non-Party Page 3 COUNSEL LIST sissi Attorneys for Jeffrey pste n Robert Critton, Esquire Burman Critton Luther & Coleman LIP Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00614442 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2008CA025129XXXXMB Al PI aintif f(s), vs. Ail E. EPSTEIN and Defendant(s). I. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. n February 27, 2009, and to have with you at that time and place the following: Duces Tecum: Any and all trip receipts, logs, Information data Ill varies to and from , from 2001 through inllOISll These items will be inspected and may be copied at that time. You will not be required to surrender the original items. You may comply with this subpoena by providing legible copies of the items to be produced to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena on or before the scheduled date of production. You may condition the preparation of the copies upon the payment in advance of the reasonable cost of preparation. You may mail or deliver the copies to the attorney whose name EFTA00614443 I. v. Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2C0SCA026129)0000/8 At SDT Without Deposition Page2 appears on this subpoena and thereby eliminate your appearance at the time and place specified above. You have the right to object to the production pursuant to this subpoena at any time before production by giving written notice to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena. THIS WILL NOT BE A DEPOSITION. NO TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN. If you fail to: 1) Appear as specified; or 2) Furnish the records instead of appearing as provided above; or .3) Object to this subpoena, You may be in contempt of court. You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorney, and unless excused from this subpoena by this attorney or the court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed. DATED this day of , 20 . Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) EFTA00614444 v, Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2008CA025129XXXXMB Al SDT Without Deposition Page3 CERTIFICATION OF RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The undersigned, as custodian of records for , certifies that the attached • documents consisting of pages represents a true copy of all items within my possession, custody or control which are described in the Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition served on me in the above styled action and each page is numbered by me for identification. Production is complete and has been numbered by the custodian of records. It is further certified that originals of the items produced are maintained under the direction, custody and control of the undersigned. The foregoing Certification was acknowledged before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take• acknowledgments, this day of 20 , who: [ ] is personally known to me; or [ ] has produced [ ] did or [ ] did not, take an oath, as identification; and who: and who executed the foregoing certification, and who acknowledged the foregoing certification to be freely and voluntarily executed for the purposes therein recited. Notary Public, State of Florida at Large. My Commission Expires: EFTA00614445 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2008CA025129XXXXMB Al Plaint-W(8), VS. E. EPSTEIN and Defendant(s). AMENDED NOTICE OF PRODUCTION FROM NON-PARTY TO: ALL COUNSEL ON THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST YOU ARE NOTIFIED that after ten (10) days from the date of service of this Notice, if service is by delivery, or fifteen (15) days from the date of service, if service is by mail, and if no objection is received from any party, the undersigned will issue or apply to the Clerk of this Court for issuance of the attached Subpoena directed to the following individual(s) to produce the items listed at the time and place specified in the Subpoena. 1. EXHIBIT ‘'B EFTA00614446 M. v. Epstein. et al Case No. 50 2008CA025129)000(MB Al Amended Notice of Production from Non-Party Page 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mall to all Counsel on the attached list, this IO day of February, 2009. Jack Scaro Florida Bar No.: 189440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 EFTA00614447 IMO v. Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2008CA025120)COVMS Amended Notice of Production from Non-Party Page 3 COUNSEL LIST Jack A. Goldberger. Esquire Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Robert Critton, Esquire Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00614448 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50 2006CA025129)OO0(MB Al Plaintiff(s), VS. E. EPSTEIN and MI Defendant(s). SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., n March 2, 2009, and to have with you at that time and place the following: Duces Tecum: Any and all trip receipts, logs, information d liveries to and from from 2001 through 2006; and Any and all trip receipts, logs, information data and/or records involvi and/or from roug These items will be Inspected and may be copied at that time. You will not be required to surrender the original items. You may comply with this subpoena by providing legible copies of the items to be produced to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena on or before the scheduled date of production. You may condition the preparation of the copies upon the EFTA00614449 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) I v. Epstein, et al No. 50 2008CA025129)0O0(MB Al SDT Without Deposition Page2 payment in advance of the reasonable cost of preparation. You may mail or deliver the copies to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena and thereby eliminate your appearance at the time and place specified above. You have the right to object to the production pursuant to this subpoena at any time before production by giving written notice to the attorney whose name appears on this subpoena. THIS WILL NOT BE A DEPOSITION. NO TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN. If you fail to: 1) Appear as specified; or 2) Furnish the records instead of appearing as provided above; or 3) Object to this subpoena, You may be in contempt of court. You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorney, and unless excused from this subpoena by this attorney or the court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed. DATED this , 20 . day of Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Jack P. Hill Florida Bar No.: 0547808 ey, P.A. EFTA00614450 v. Epstein, et al Case No. 50 2008CA025129)00C(MB N SDT Without Deposition • Page3 CERTIFICATION OF RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The undersigned, as custodian of records for , certifies that the attached documents consisting of pages represents a true copy of al items within my possession, custody or control which are described in the Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition served on me in the above styled action and each page is numbered by me for identification. Production is complete and has been numbered by the custodian of records. It is further certified that originals of the items. produced are maintained under the direction, custody and control of the undersigned. The foregoing Certification was acknowledged before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, this day of 20 , who: [ I is personally known to me; or [ has produced I I did or [ ] did not, take an oath, as identification; and who: and who executed the foregoing certification, and who acknowledged the foregoing certification to be freely and voluntarily executed for the purposes therein recited. Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: EFTA00614451 IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA025129)000O.49 Al Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and ElIn Defendants. / ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, OBJECTION TO NOTICE AND AMENDED NOTICE OF PRODUCTION AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WITHOUT DEPOSITION DIRECTED TO YELLOW CAB THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant's, Jeffrey Epstein, Objection To Notice And Amended Notice Of Production And Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition Directed To Yellow Cab, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that ' • ' led? decried deaCP0 4- 2 O cri/A-e, DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida, this day of , 2009. SIGNED AND DATED MAR 0 3 2009 Edward A. GarrisodUDGE EDWARD A. GARRISON Circuit Court Judge Copies furnished: ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR, ESQ., and MICHAEL J. PIKE. ESQ., ack Scarola. Esa., and Jack P. Hill, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, , and JACK A. GOLDBERGER, to 1400, EXHIBIT \tall EFTA00614452 Page 2 of 3 Wavy. 800 Sold 706 Page 1 800 Sold 706, 26 Flail Weekly D2831 (Cite as: 800 So.2d 7 H District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE IN- SURANCE CO., Petitioner, v. Gary PARRISH, etc. et al, Respondents. No. 5001-2292. Nov. 30, 2001. In action for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits, in- sured requested production of materials concerning policy coverage. The Circuit Court, Brevard County, Vincent G. Torpy, J., ordered production. Insurer petitioned for certiorari review. The District Court of Appeal, Harris, J., held that certiorari was available to quash order permitting discovery that trial court acknowledged was irrelevant Certiorari granted. West Headnotes Ilj Pretrial Procedure 307A C=31 307A Pretrial Procedure 307All Depositions and Discovery 307A11(A) Discovery in General 307Ak31 k. Relevancy and Materiality. Most Cited Cases Discovery must be relevant to subject matter of the pending case. West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). (2) Certiorari 73 41;=.17 73 Certiorari 73I Nature and Grounds 73k11 Decisions and Proceedings of Courts, Judges, and Judicial Officers 73k17 k. Particular Proceedings in Civil Actions. Most Cited Cases Certiorari was available to quash order permitting discovery that trial court acknowledged was irrelev- ant to any pleadings before the court; judge expan- ded parameters of permitted discovery to a fishing expedition which "might give rise to a potential cause of action." West's F.S.A. RCP Rule 1.280(b)(1). '706 Sharon Lee Stedman, of Sharon Lee Stedman, PA., Orlando, and Jack E. Carstensen of Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, M, Cocoa, for Petitioner. '707 Julie H. Littity-Rubin of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, West Paint Beach, and Robert M. Moletterre, o Graham, Moletteire, 'futile & Torpy, PA., Melbourne, for Respondents. HARRIS, J. Gary and Joellen Parrish ("Parrish") sued State Farm as their uninsured motorist carrier. Since there were two policies involved, Parrish claimed that the policy coverage for each policy should be stacked. State Fann defended on the basis that Par- rish had specifically selected and paid for nonstack- ing coverage. That was the state of the pleadings when Parrish requested the production of volumin- ous material seeking information relative to how the selection process concerning the stacking cover- age option was handled by State Fenn, apparently to see if there was any basis to avoid the con- sequence of Parrish's previous selection. When the trial court ordered the production, State Farm filed its certiorari petition urging that the discovery re- quest was not only unduly burdensome and over- broad, but also constituted a fishing expedition un- related to the issues raised by the pleadings. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 95 (Fla.1995), the supreme court held that certi- orari was available and should be used to quash an order "to the extent that it permitt[ed) discovery even when it has been affirmatively established that such discovery is neither relevant nor will lead to discovery of relevant information." Id at 95. In All- state Insurance Co. v. Botcher, 733 Sold 993 EXHIBITV O 2009 Thomson ReuterstWest. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstreameaspx?s plitttprfl=HTMLEttifm=NotSet&mt... 4/10/2009 EFTA00614453 Page 3 of 3 800 So.2d 706 Page 2 800 So.2d 706, 26 Fla... Weekly D2831 (Cite as: 800 So.2d 706) (Fla.1999), the supreme court again discussed 800 So.2d 706, 26 Fla.'. Weekly D2831 Langston and, without expressly overruling it, stated that the principle announced in Martin- END OF DOCUMENT Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (FIa.1987) (irreparable injury), remains the appropriate stand- ard in considering the grant of certiorari relief in pretrial discovery. In this case, when the trial court granted the pro- duction, it acknowledged that the requested discov- ery was irrelevant to any pleadings before the court. Thus the Langston criteria, to the extent it remains applicable, was met. But the judge went further "I think that a prudent lawyer, you know, has to-is en- titled to do a little fishing around the number of the complaint on related issues that might give rise to a cause of action, if there is a potential cause of ac- tion out there. So, you know, 1 believe that if you want to call it fishing, I think a little fishing is ap- propriate and even prudent and warranted." [1][2) Thus, the error for which certiorari is here re- quested does not involve a mere alleged judicial er- ror concerning the relevancy of the requested ma- terial to the issues before the court; it is an error of law by which the judge himself has expanded the parameters of rule 1.280(bX1), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, from permitting discovery of mat- ters "relevant to the subject matter of the pending action" to authorizing a fishing expedition which "might give rise to a potential cause of action." We believe that having to defend against a potential, unstated cause of action while at the same time hav- ing to defend against the action properly before the court is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant certiorari. Further, effective review is necessary to mine compliance with the discovery rule as written. CERTIORARI is granted and the order to produce documents unrelated to the present controversy but which might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft=HTMLE8cifm=NotSet&mt... 4/10/2009 EFTA00614454