EFTA00208185.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 1 of 22 Tonja Haddad Coleman From: Sent: To: Subject: Thank you. Jack Scarola Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:41 PM Re: Epstein discovery On May 8, 2012. at 3:27 PM. "Tonja Haddad Coleman" MINIMI > > Fine. > Tonja Haddad Coleman. Esq. > Tonja Haddad, P.A. > Justice Building > Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 > www.tonjahaddadpa.com > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged > and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the > person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or > duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email > and destroy all copies of the original message. > Original Message > From: Jack Scarola [mailto > Sent: Tuesday. May 08, 2012 3:23 PM > To: a> > Cc: Brad Edwards > Subject: Re: Epstein discovery > You have misunderstood my communication. I am not asking you to waive > anything but only to agree that the production we are making does not > constitute a waiver as to anything we have continued to assert is > privileged. > On May 8, 2012, at 3:08 PM, "Tonja Haddad Coleman" > <11111111111.111111.1111.11.11S > wrote: >> >> Jack: wrote: 1 EFTA00208185 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 2 of 22 >> Thank you for your response. I am sure you are aware that the law » permits you to respond to a discovery request by stating that >> "without waiving the objection" you are producing the documents. >> However, because I have yet > to >> see the documents, or your privilege log, I cannot possibly agree to >> anything. much less concede a privilege, as it is my understanding » that > some >> of the items to which you are objecting, for example, are electronic >> communications to/from government entities which, as Mr. Edwards is >> likely aware from his days as a government attorney, are legally a >> matter of > public >> record, will not, in fact, be privileged under any theory. >> That being said, kindly send what you have and if we still deem it >> non-responsive, in non-compliance with the Court's order, or >> otherwise not subject to any privilege, we can take it up with the Judge. >> Thank you. >> Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. >> Tonja Haddad, P.A. >> Justice Building » >> Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 >> >> www.tonjahaddadpa.com >> The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged >> and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the > person(s) >> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified >> that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this >> communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, >> please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of >> the original message. >> >> Original Message >> From: Jack Scarola [mailto >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:35 AM >> To: >> Cc: Brad Edwards >> Subject: Epstein discovery 2 EFTA00208186 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 3 of 22 >> I have completed my review of the documents responsive to your >> outstanding discovery request and it appears from that review that >> ALL of the > documents >> fall within the attorney work product privilege. Nevertheless, we are >> prepared to produce the documents to you today with very minor and >> clearly identified redactions, if you will agree that our production >> does not constitute or support a waiver of any other privilege >> assertion. In the absence of such an agreement, we will be obliged to >> assert privilege as to all the documents and make them available to >> the Court for in camera inspection. >> Please let me have your response at your earliest convenience so as >> not to delay our production. > ************************************************ ******************* tit > ***so >> **** ******* *** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication » is not >a >> secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. >> This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney >> Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the >> Electronic > Communication >> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information contained in this > E-mail >> message is privileged and confidential under Fla. It. Jud. Admin. >> 2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) >> named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended >> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >> distribution, or copy of this > communication >> is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the > sender >> and shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this >> communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by >> e-mail or > by >> telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original > message. >> Thank you. >> > *************** ******************************************************* >> ***** ********* >> > ****** ************* ********** ***************************************** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication is > not a secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. 3 EFTA00208187 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 4 of 22 > This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney > Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic > Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 82510-2521. The information > contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under > Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of > the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly > prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and > shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this > communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original message. > Thank you. > ******** ******************* *************** **************************** > M.** Privileged and Confidential Electronic communication is not a secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. This communication originates from the law firm of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. S2510-2521. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone at (800) 780-8607 and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. 4 EFTA00208188 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 5 of 22 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOO134B Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiCounter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMEND PROTECTIVE ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on PlaintiffJeffrey Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to Produce and to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant EDWARDS. In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of the former law firm of the Defendants EDWARDS and ROTHSTEIN. The Court finds that the Amended Request for Production and request for subpoena, does request documents which the Court finds are either relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the Defendant EDWARDS shall produce any non-privileged documents as identified in Paragraph 13 of EDWARDS' Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order. In addition, the Plaintiff EPSTEIN is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the identical documents that are non-privileged. Nothing in this Order shall constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant EDWARDS and/or others may file an objection 'to any such documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents. EFTA00208189 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 6 of 22 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA0408003OOOCMB/Division AG Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order Page 2 of 2 DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beacaibi1121 Beach County, Florida this day of April, 2012. wED p,, 04 vo s ApR u Ar JUDGs ° 20I2 to HONORABLE DAVID F. CR( )w %it CIRCUIT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq. Fowler White Burnett, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. The L•S Law Firm Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue, South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Fernier, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00208190 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 7 of 22 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, F.DWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court to enter an order compelling the Defendant Bradley Edwards, yet again, to provide responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production. Plaintiff likewise requests that this Court order sanctions against Defendant Edwards for his direct and flagrant disregard of this Court's previous Order dated April 10, 2012. In support thereof, Plaintiff states: INTRODUCTION On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff Epstein served upon Defendant Edwards a Motion to Compel and to Amend and Lift a Protective Order. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." On April 10, 2012, this Court entered an Order on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, stating that "within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the Defendant EDWARDS shall produce any non-privileged documents as identified in Paragraph 13 of EDWARDS' [sic] Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order." See Order entered April 10, 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." The Order further avowed that "[n]othing in this Order shall EFTA00208191 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 8 of 22 constitute any waiver or ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant EDWARDS and/or others may file an objection to any such documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents." See Exhibit B (emphasis added). Accordingly, all responses were due on or before April 30, 2012. On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff received Defendant Edwards' untimely response to the afore-referenced Request to Produce. A perfunctory review of the items provided by Edwards established that his response was both incomplete and deficient. Edwards' response contained nothing more than partial electronic communications between himself and three or four of the countless reporters with whom he had communications during the relevant time period. On or about May 15, 2012, and after sending a letter to Defendant explaining his non-compliance, Plaintiff filed its initial Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. In response thereto, Defendant served upon Plaintiff a privilege log' as to the electronic mail correspondence between Edwards and a member of the press, Conchita Samoff. There was no reference, objection, or privilege asserted as to the rest of the items Defendant was ordered by this Court to produce; to wit: e-mails, data, correspondence. and similar documents dated April I, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards. Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Piston and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of While the document is labeled "Privilege log," it contains an objection to each of the Discovery requests as "irrelevant" notwithstanding that this Court has already deemed them as relevant. 2 EFTA00208192 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 9 of 22 Investigation, (d) Conchita Samoff, and (e) any other news employees or reporters." See Exhibit A. Accordingly, Defendant's response undeniably corroborates that he wholly disregarded this Court's Order, failed to comply with this Court's Order to produce the items responsive to Plaintiffs Request, and failed to provide any privilege log with respect to any of the afore-referenced parties, with the single exception being Samoff. Finally, and of paramount concern, is the undeniable fact that these requests were due to Plaintiff on or before April 30, 2012; two full weeks before the deadline imposed upon Plaintiff by the Federal court to turn over documents Plaintiff intends to utilize in its deposition of Scott Rothstein; the Co-Defendant in this case. The documents were due to the Federal court on or before May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff's deposition of Scott Rothstein is now scheduled for the week of June I1, 2012; dates about which Defendant has firsthand knowledge and has been aware for several weeks. To date, and notwithstanding the above. Defendant has willingly, intentionally, and irrefutably ignored an Order from this Court resulting in his calculated thwarting of the discovery process. As such, and as demonstrated more fully below, Plaintiffs requested order and sanctions are warranted. MEMORANDUM OF LAW As this Court is aware, it Ordered Defendant Edwards to provide the following specific items: [a]II e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards. Scott W. Rothstein, Marc hlurik, Cam Holmes, Mike Fisten and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) Conchita Samoff, and (e) any other news employees or reporters. 3 EFTA00208193 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 10 of 22 See Exhibit A. The Order further avowed that Defendant Edwards was permitted to assert any alleged privilege by filing "a privilege log specifically identifying such documents." See Exhibit B. Edwards failed to either provide the items requested or a privilege log as to his communications with all listed entities/persons, other than Sarnoff.2 It is well-settled law that if a party alleges that information requested from it is protected by privilege, then a privilege log must be prepared and attached to the response, or the privilege is waived See TIG Insurance Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (stating that failure to provide a reason for privilege and prepare a privilege log constitutes waiver of the privilege) (emphasis added). Here, Edwards fails to either respond to the Request to Produce or assert any privilege as Court ordered, with the single afore- referenced exception. A court has the inherent power to implement and enforce effective judicial proceedings pursuant to pretrial rules. As such, when a party fails to comply with a pretrial order, a court has broad discretion in determining sanctions. First Republic Corp. of America v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, Defendant Edwards' inapposite and patent disregard for this Court's Order mandates sanctions. Finally, Plaintiff certifies that he "in good faith, has conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action." Ft.A. R.Civ. P. 1.380. A true and correct copy of the correspondence sent to Defendant Edwards regarding the first Motion to 2 The applicability and veracity of Edwards assertion that the communications between himself and Sarnoff are "Work Product Privilege" will be addressed in a separate Motion and Memorandum of Law, as Plaintiff opposes this contention and submits that it has no basis in law or fact. 4 EFTA00208194 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 11 of 22 Compel is attached hereto as "Exhibit C," and the second, which was sent after receiving the Sarnoff "privilege log" is attached hereto as "Exhibit D." Pursuant to Rule 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Epstein is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees necessitated by Defendant's flagrant disregard of both this Court's Order and the afore- referenced Rules of Civil Procedure. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for all of the reasons delineated above and in reliance upon the applicable law cited herein, Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court, yct again, Order Defendant Bradley Edwards to respond in full to Plaintiff's Request to Produce, award attorney's fees as sanctions, and such other and further relief as this Court deems proper, including any available for Edwards' interference and impediment regarding the deposition of Scott Rothstein. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties listed on the attached service list, via facsimile and US Mail, this May 30, 2012. I onja Hamad Lc:Homan, V,sq. Fla. Bar No.: 0176737 LAW OFFICES OF TORIA11ADDAD, PA Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 5 EFTA00208195 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 12 of 22 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Jack Scarola. Esq. Seamy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. LS Law Firm Four Seasons Tower 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 6 EFTA00208196 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 13 of 22 IN MB CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502069CA040800XICOaViB Judge David F. Crow EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF AFFIlky ROMP g. MOTION TO COltsiFEL ANTSAIVIDTD Ft. itbElt • Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein", by and through his undersigned counsel, moves this Court to compel the production of documents from Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("Edwards") and to amend. and lift a protective eider relating to a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee. Tlaeteduads kr Dili /v40;tion areas follows: I. On April 12, 20t0, Epstein sent a Requett to Produce to Edwards requesting the following documents: 3. All eanAils, data, coirespondenc memos, or singly documents between Bradley J. •Edttaids, Seat W. Re William Elexgesx Aclicr anchor any &folio or itiutietitatitte ofgRA. ga anyn— mita:SW 61911O TI(tty (person or entity) regarding Jeffrey Epstein of Which inentkins Jeffrey Epstein (including • Mike Fisten, Rermeth Jenne, Patrick Robe:KS or Ritil (Rich) Fandrey). 2. On May 11, 2010, Edwards served his response to this request by stating: 3. Objection as to communications to or from investigators as that is protected by the work-product and/or attorney-client privilege. Exhibit A. EFTA00208197 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 14 of 22 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800)Of3CY34B/Div. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order 3. Although Edwards did not object to producing all documents requested, he did not produce any documents responsive to this request. Nor did Edwards, who asserted privilege, prepare a privilege log related to this request It is important to note that this request went to documents within Edwards.' possession and control as opposed to documents that were produced from the 13anIcruptcy Trustee. 4. The documents requested in /13 were also requested by means of a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee dated April 17, 2010. After several motions and orders to compel, Edwards finally prepared a privilege log relating to communications to and from the investigators among others. However; Edwards did not produce any e-mails or documents between the lawyers at RRA and (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation — to which he had not objected and for which he did not claim a privilege on his privilege log. 5. Edwards did not produce any documents by and between RRA lawyers or representatives and third parties such as Conchita Sarnoff, a reporter, and any other news employees or reporters. Edwards has not identified any communication with reporters on his privilege log. 6. On January 3, 2011, Epstein sent a second subpoena requesting the following documents from the Bankruptcy Trustee: 1. Any and all email communications by/between any attorney and/or employee of the former Rothstein law firm, including but not limited to, Scott Rothstein, Russell Adler, Williaria Berger, Michael Fisten, Ken Jenne, David Boden, Deborah Villegas, Andrew Barnett, Patrick Roberts, Richard Fandry, Christina Kittennan, Gary Farmer and Bradley Edwards, on the one hand, and any of the following regarding Jeffrey Epstein: 2 EFTA00208198 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 15 of 22 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XX3OEMB/Div. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order a) U.S. Attorneys office; b) State of Florida Attorney's Office c) Federal Bureau of Investigations; d) City of Palm Beach Police Department; e) /sty investigator working for the State of Florida; 0 Any attorney, law firm and any agent of any attorney or law fnui who represented any individual with a claim against Jeffrey Epstein. 7. On April 1, 2011, Epstein sent a Request to Produce to Edwards seeking documents that support Edwards' contention that Epstein has waived his Pifth•Amendment right by speaking to reporters. 8. On May 5, 2011, Edwards responded with dbjectiOns and debris of privilege. Edwards did not prepare a privilege log even though the Court ordered him to do so. 9. On July 14, 2011, this Court entered an Order granting a Motion for Protectiye Order without prejudice relating to the records on the subpoeiut to the BanIcruptgy Trustee based on sccipc and relevancy. A copy of the Order is attached to this Motion asExhibit 1. 10. On November 11, 2011, Edwards filed his Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and a lengthy Statement of Undisputed Facts iti Which he purported to identify "swannery judgment evidence" on which he relied. Such "undisputed facts" reference and/or quote the Pahn Beach Police Incident Report (see ¶3), correspondence from the U.S.. Attorney's Office to Epstein (see ¶¶5, 19, 25), correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel (see ¶¶6, 20, 2/) to support Edwards' argument that he acted in good faith and that Epstein "violated his agreement with the U.S. Attomey's Office..." (¶28). Edwards also quotes correspondence from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein's counsel (see ¶6) specifically in support of his contention that there was a 'joint attempt to minimize Epitein's civil exposure." 3 EFTA00208199 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 16 of 22 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800,OCaMB/Div. AO Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order (Id). Edwards also cites from a proposed plea agreement (see ¶20) in support of his contention that Epstein engaged in witness tampering. 11. Edwards has also referred to statements allegedly made by Epstein to a reporter in ¶¶80-81 of his Undisputed Statement of Facts. Edwards contends Epstein's alleged statements to reporters waives his Fifth Amendment rights. 12. As a result of Edwards relying on communications with the government and reporters as part of his Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and to support his contention that Epstein has waived his Fifth Amendment rights by speaking with reporters, discovery is highly appropriate on these issues and should be permitted. 13. Epstein wishes to amend and narrow his request to the Trustee to obtain the following records: All e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards, Scott W. Rothstein, Marc Nurik, Cam Ilohnes, Mike Piston and any one of the following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) Conchita Samoft, and (e) any other news employees or reporters. 14. The described documents are not priVileged, so no in camera review is necessary. Epstein's request has been narrowed so that compliance and production are not overly broad or burdensome. The request is relevant and necessary in order for Epstein to defend Edwards' Renewed Motion for Stiiarnary Judgment, including Edwards' contention that Epstein has waited his Fifth Amendment rights by discussions and communications with media, news employees or reporters. 4 EFTA00208200 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 17 of 22 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards • Cese No: 502009CA0408003OOO2vIE/Div. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order 15. Based on the above, Epstein requests the following relief: a. An Order directing Edwards to produce the above-described records that are in his possession and control; b. An Order directing the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records described above and amending the prior protective order so as to allow the Bankruptcy Trustee to produce the records described above; and c. That the Order contain a specific deadline for compliance. Epstein requests compliance within twenty (20) days of The datb of the Order so as to allow time for any additional discovery in advance of Rothstein's deposition and in advance of the hearing on Edwards' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. 16. The undersigned cdthsel certifies that he has and will continue to attempt to resolve this matter with. counsel for 'Awn* without the need of a hearing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPS'TEIN, requests the Court grant its Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order for the reasons set forth above. Regnede-arixistitiiiittal rJOS4III L. ACKertnan, Jr. r • Florida Bar No. 235954 FOWT.ER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. AreSttbn"Beach;•17iorida 33401 ana Christopher E. Knight Florida Bar. No. 60.7363 . 5 EFTA00208201 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 18 of 22 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA0408001OCXXWM/Div. AG Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. hifiaani. Florida 331M Attorneys for PlaintiffJeffrey Epstein cieRTITIGATE QE-SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. Mail on this 9m day of March, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Searc4a Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atter:bury, Goldberger & Weiss, PS, 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-502; and Marc S. Nutik, Esq., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik, One East BroWard Blvd., Sttite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 6 EFTA00208202 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 19 of 22 IN THE CIRCUITCOURT OF MB 1S'a JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA an DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XIOCCME Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintili'Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL AN) AMEND PROT'ECTI'VE ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffieffrey EPsteinis Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order in the above-styled case. This Court having reviewed the Motion, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby CnRDERED! AND ADJUD6 ED factws:i The Motion seeks to Compel a Request to Produce and to modify this Court's prior Protective Order in regard to specific requests of the Defendant EDWARDS. In addition, the Motion seeks authority to direct a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee of the 'former law firm of the Defendants EDWARDS and ROTELSIMIN. The Court finds that the Amended Request for Production and request for subpoena, does request documents Which the Court finds are either rale-Van-I riiid/orTellerrit6151 CaraiiirtiediO lead to adrinssible evidence. Therefore, WitliiiiiWeia7(10)dais of the date; Ofthis Orderrther Defendant EDWARDS shall produce any non-privileged dripuments as identifiedjp_karagraph_p_otEDWARDSLMotion to-Compel. and Am end Protective-Order. . In.additi on, the PleintifitiSTBIN is given authority to issue a subpoena to the Bankruptcy Trustee requesting the identiosl ilettinientithat ate non-privileged. Nothing in this Order Shelf constitute any waiver or 'ruling upon any privilege that may apply to said documents and the Defendant EDWARDS and/or others may file an objection "to any such documentation on any privilege grounds and shall file a privilege log specifically identifying such documents. EXHIBIT I3 EFTA00208203 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLED Docket 06/06/2012 Page 20 of 22 fe. Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800)OOOavD3/Division AG Order on Epstein's Motion to Compel and Amend Protective Order Page 2 of 2 DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Bea*Mtn. Beach County, Florida this day of April, 2012. WED ,4 Ant 4PR 47 7-4.0 coce zoe04 awl HONORAB l ir- LE VID F. CROW' OW CIRCUIT JUDGE Copies finished to: • Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq. Fowler White Burnett, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Pabn Beach, FL 33401 Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. The L•S Law Firm Four Seasons Tower, 151 Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Jack Scarola, Bsq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA. 215•9 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, PA. 250 Australian Avenue, South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. Law.Offices-of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort-Lauderdale; FL 33301 EFTA00208204 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 21 of 22 TO A HADDAD, PA nurc Lanaoraate, 33304 May itt; 204 Via:W andtectbmiellail Itik " Searcy enney;etia West Palm gad; 33.40 Re: EnorpziN &Wyk aid peat Mr‘ Seit014:. argikte04047.Etur purpOttoixtv'obsin:dottigathq:10: $0#1411$ pl. our Motion to Compel Flea* golq:44Mitgonitest to which you were Cou*ordtred Wreitspon tectireittpOtrtotioviar. traU 'All .e-malla, data, contwaticlez,strasimilar cis' 1, 2003 through Augustt4 Slifietwa0r4ley EdNw0 r Rothstein, Marc NUti.k, Cara golmes;.iviikeristert atitiltipono of thotflik of mentioning Jeffici $4:t.torney's O1 teAttoruey's Office, (c) the FederalThirst tfl.tinskisati t4 :34t 0320.4 othet news employees Otitigtteciel ZigArqpi(Ipli4 'XO:910tiOn tOtorgiel: lau•ica.faitto maceifiamiuitti le eolegottat2ItiOtitiket its.tiopStp :001ffift.g.t : • L -,:lgainr*.tki.ittSTge.e... .i.i0:93 respootfloh* ,7lbligliOtcatfoOrWrittetit41.:aa .,eirsaf. decinn**/ 1t 1)", ZAWY:0144 1**ein Jagidt4y I. EXI‘if!* fitaolt* . gara.i.-.RWSIXSitatilaq oattYrilie ftalAtili.ig,',40 10 Of - N. g:atamegis Otdo% 4bYiliatiataiiifout itivefie.44* fly WI 11,4,2 ,110 ,„ APJ111 q, eggamjfrag appariamardian witliP pil RI. .1, _ 0.7.#axJiiii!ii.bre, indobig Ificsaeix, widamorwathemiblerigefaviciNtfonktiral b or. SbASNAY, tfillW: sr' elam toilKitaatial,Ocileiroa • iSfit*.r.ltif ITT c EFTA00208205 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 PtChle°S of 22 Tonja Haddad Coleman From: Tonja Haddad Coleman Sent: Tuesday. May 29, 2012 10:47 AM To: 'Mary E. Pirrotta' Cc: 'Jack Scarola' Subject: RE: Edwards adv. Epstein Jack: To avoid any further miscommunications, misunderstandings, attempts to circumvent or delay the legal process, and any other intellectually dishonest or legally inconsistent statements made by you, please note the following with respect to your purported statement below and its accompanying attachment. As you are undoubtedly aware, you were Ordered by Judge Crow to produce the following (or provide a proper privilege log regarding same): [a]ll e-mails, data, correspondence, and similar documents dated April 1, 2008 through August 1, 2010 by and between Bradley J. Edwards. Scott W. Rothstein, Marc, Nurik, Cara Holmes, Mike Fisten and any on of he following regarding or mentioning Jeffrey Epstein in any way: (a) the U.S. Attorney's Office, (b) the State Attorney's Office, (c) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (d) Conchita Samoff, and (e) any other news employees or reporters. The plain language contained therein could not be more clear and definite. However, you have provided a privilege log that addresses correspondence with one of the parties listed above. As such, you are, yet again, failing to comply with the Court's Order. Accordingly, we disagree with your assessment as delineated below, and do not agree that you have completed production in accordance with Judge Crow's Order. Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. TONJA HADDAD, P.A. Justice Building 524 South Andrews Avenue Suite 200 North Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 467-1223 (954) 337-3716 facsimile www.tonjahaddadpa.com The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby noticed that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of Ins communication is strictly prohibited. II you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. EXHIBIT D EFTA00208206