EFTA00585420

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
vs. 
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, 
individually, 
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, 
JUDGE: 
HAFELE 
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OMNIBUS 
MOTION IN LIMINE 
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned 
counsel, herein moves for an Order in Limine precluding Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley 
Edwards ("Edwards") and his Counsel from making any mention or use of the below-listed 
items/matters/witness testimony at trial'. In support thereof, Epstein states: 
INTRODUCTION 
The pleadings in this matter establish that Mr. Edwards is intent on avoiding the actual 
facts he must prove to establish his sole remaining claim of Malicious Prosecution against Mr. 
Epstein. Instead, Edwards is seeking to present to the jury prior alleged bad acts of Epstein, 
completely separate and apart from the accusation made against Epstein in this lawsuit. Plaintiff 
has no evidence, nor can he prove, that Mr. Epstein lacked probable cause at the time he filed his 
lawsuit against Mr. Edwards. In its place, Edwards is creating a different case that relates, not to 
1 This Motion only includes items known to Epstein as of the date of filing this Motion pursuant to this Court's 
Order in open Court on September 15, 2017, as them are still outstanding Discovery Motions and depositions 
scheduled for which an order in limine precluding evidence may be required. 
EFTA00585420

what information Mr. Epstein had or relied upon in filing suit, or any other element of his cause 
of action, but instead to irrelevant and unproven allegations made by others against Mr. Epstein; 
allegations or cases that have no bearing on the issues or elements of Malicious Prosecution. 
This motion in limine seeks to prohibit any reference to evidence at trial by first having 
its inadmissibility determined outside the presence of the jury. Rosa v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 
636 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The purpose of this motion in limine is to prevent 
Edwards from offering improper evidence at trial, the mere mention of which would be 
prejudicial. Buy-Low Save Ctrs., Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); 
Dailey v. Multicon Dev., Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, a 
motion in limine is proper to exclude any irrelevant and immaterial evidence when its probative 
value is outweighed by prejudice. Devoe v. Western Auto Supply Co., 537 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 
2d DCA 1989). A motion in limine is especially appropriate to preclude inadmissible evidence 
that will be highly prejudicial to the moving party and, if referenced in a question or by counsel, 
would unlikely be disregarded by the jury despite an instruction by the court to do so. Fischman 
v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).Consequently, in the case at hand, Epstein 
requests that this Court enter an Order precluding any reference to the below-listed matters/items 
in each sub-category. 
A. 
All of the Exhibits listed below. 
The items listed below that appear on Edwards's Trial Exhibit List are irrelevant to the 
case at hand pursuant to § 90.401 of the Florida Statutes, and to the extent that Edwards could 
argue that any are relevant, any alleged "probative value is substantially outweighed by the 
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of 
cumulative evidence." § 90.403 FLA. STAT. (2016); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 
2 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585421

So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). 'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue 
tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an 
emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals 
improperly to the jury's emotions."' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009). 
Additionally, it is well-settled law that evidence of prior convictions, acquittals or arrests 
is irrelevant in a civil action and thus inadmissible. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 
So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As such, 
Epstein's conviction, as well as any testimony or evidence of any other criminal investigation, is 
inadmissible. Here, the below-listed items undeniably have no bearing on Edwards's Malicious 
Prosecution claim against Epstein. In fact, the repeated references to "victim" in the list below 
prove that; as the only alleged victim in this matter is Mr. Edwards. While it is clear from 
Edwards's Exhibit List that Edwards would like to re-litigate his previous cases against Epstein, 
every other case in which Mr. Epstein was sued, and attempt to prejudice and infame the jury 
with criminal accusations, these items listed below are clearly intended to do little more than 
unfairly inflame and prejudice the jury with irrelevant information; none of which is necessary to 
a Malicious Prosecution case, or germane to the elements that Edwards must prove in this case to 
prevail. 
Finally, the below-listed items should also be excluded on the following grounds: 
Relevance; Prejudice; Confusion; Misleading; Hearsay; Impermissible/Inadmissible Character 
Evidence; and Impermissible/Inadmissible Evidence of other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts; 
Confidential Information of Third Parties; Confidential Financial Information; Vague; and 
Overbroad. 
1. 
All applicable criminal statutes. 
4. 
Video of Jeffrey Epstein's home and route from victim to Epstein's home. 
3 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 
EFTA00585422

5. 
Order confirmation from Amazon.com for purchase of books "SM 101: A Realistic 
Introduction," "Slave Craft: Roadmap for Erotic Servitude-Principles, Skills and Tools" and 
"Training Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and TheirOvvners." 
6. 
Non-Prosecution Agreement. 
7. 
Jane Doe 102 Complaint. 
8. 
Messages taken from message pads found at Epstein's home. 
9. 
Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodriguez. 
24. 
Jeffrey Epstein flight logs. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a 
determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit 
identification. 
10. 
Jeffrey Epstein's phone records. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly 
make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this 
exhibit identification. 
11. 
phone records. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly 
make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this 
exhibit identification. 
12. 
Jail Visitation Logs. 
13. 
Jeffrey Epstein's probation file. 
14. 
All probable cause affidavits related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 
15. 
All evidence, information and documents taken or possessed by FBI related to 
criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 
16. 
Victims' statements to the FBI related to criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 
17. 
Video of Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home being executed. 
18. 
Application for Search Warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home. 
19. 
All records of homes, properties, bank accounts and any and all records related to 
Jeffrey Epstein's assets. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 
20. 
List of corporations owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential 
financial information. 
25. 
All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel. 
4 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585423

26. 
All documents evidencing relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and MC2 or any 
modeling agencies. 
27. 
Yearbooks of Jane Doe. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant on Jeffrey Epstein's home. 
32. 
Tape recording or transcript of recording of conversation between Jeffrey Epstein and 
George Rush. 
33. 
Notepads found in Jeffrey Epstein's home and/or during trash pulls outside of his home 
during criminal investigation. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 
34. 
The Palm Beach State Attorney's Criminal file against Jeffrey Epstein. 
35. 
All documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's 6/30/08 conviction. 
36. 
Jeffrey Epstein's criminal plea colloquy. 
37. 
Public records from the Department of Corrections related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
38. 
Records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
39. 
All statements made by Jeffrey Epstein. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot 
possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under 
this exhibit identification. 
40. 
List of properties and vehicles in Larry Visoski's name. This is so overbroad that 
Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude 
anything under this exhibit identification. 
41. 
All of Jeffrey Epstein's Responses to Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, 
Answers to Interrogatories in cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80994, 08-
80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092. 
42. 
All discovery related responses of Jeffrey Epstein in cases 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-
80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-
81092 
43. 
Jeffrey Epstein's Answers and Affirmative Defenses in all civil cases against him. This 
5 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585424

is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he 
seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
44. 
All Complaints in which Jeffrey Epstein was a plaintiff or defendant. 
45. 
Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in cases 08- 80119, 08-
80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09- 80591, 09-80656, 
09-80802,09-81092. 
46. 
Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in State Court cases LM 
v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB and 
M
.
 
v. Jeffrey Epstein, 
Case No. 502008CP003626XXXXMB. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly 
make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit 
identification. 
47. 
Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition testimony and discovery responses in State Court case 
Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, et al. CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG. This is so 
overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he 
seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
48. 
Any and all newspaper articles, online articles or publications related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or 
not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
49. 
Report and Analysis of Jeffrey Epstein's assets. 
Also objected to as irrelevant, 
Improper/Confidential financial information. 
50. 
Video footage (DVD) of walk through site inspection of Jeffrey Epstein's home. Also 
objected to as irrelevant, Improper/Confidential financial information. 
51. 
Photos of all of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, cars, boats and planes. Also objected to as 
irrelevant, Improper/Confidential financial information. 
52. 
Probable Cause Affidavits prepared against Jeffrey Epstein and 
53. 
Audio tape of 
54. 
Photographs, videos and books taken in the search warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home. 
Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 
55. 
Documents related to or evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's donations to law enforcement. 
56. 
Victim Notification Letter from US Attorney's Office to Victim. This is also so 
overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he 
seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. Edwards is the only alleged 
victim in this case. 
6 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7d. Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585425

57. 
Expert Dr. L. Dennison Reed's Report of Victim. This is so overbroad that Epstein 
cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything 
under this exhibit identification. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this case, and this 
doctor is not listed as Edwards's doctor or as an expert witness in this matter. 
58. 
Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report dated 4/20/06. 
59. 
All reports and documentation generated by Palm Beach Police Department related to 
Jeffrey Epstein. 
60. 
All Witness Statements generated by Palm Beach Police Department relating to Jeffrey 
Epstein. 
61. 
Passenger Manifests of Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft and private plane flight logs. This is so 
overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks 
to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
62. 
Passenger lists for flights taken by Jeffrey Epstein. This is so overbroad that Epstein 
cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything 
under this exhibit identification. 
63. 
Letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Alberto Pinto regarding house island project. Also 
objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 
64. Jeffrey Epstein's bank statements. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial 
information. 
.* 
Jeffrey Epstein's tax returns (this item not numbered on Edwards's Trial Exhibit List). 
65. 
MC2 emails involving communications of Jeffrey Epstein, Jeff Puller 
Pappas Suat, Jean Luc Brunel and Amanda Grant. 
66. 
DVD of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08. 
67. Transcript of plea and colloquy taken on 6-30-08. 
68. 
Massage Table. 
69. 
Lotions taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant. 
70. Computers taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search warrant. 
71. 
Vibrators, dildos and other sex toys taken from Jeffrey Epstein's home during search 
warrant. 
72. 
No Contact Orders entered against Jeffrey Epstein. 
7 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585426

73. Criminal Score Sheet regarding Jeffrey Epstein. 
74. 
Documents evidencing Jeffrey Epstein's Community Control and Probation. 
75. Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Offender Registration. 
76. Jeffrey Epstein's Booking photograph. 
77. CAD calls 
78. 
List of Jeffrey Epstein's House contacts. 
79. 
Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's investments. Also objected 
to as 
Improper/Confidential financial information. 
80. 
Letter from Chief Michael Reiter to Barry Krischler. 
81. 
List of planes owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential 
financial information. 
82. 
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-11-06. 
83. 
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 1-13-06. 
84. 
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated 2-17-06. 
85. 
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated4-6-06. 
86. 
Letter from Guy Fronstin to Assistant State Attorney dated4-10-06. 
87. 
Letter from Goldberger dated 6-22-06. Also objected to as possible attorney/client 
privilege as there is no other identifying information regarding this letter, such as its addressee. 
88. 
All subpoenas issued to State Grand Jury. 
89. Documents related to the rental of a vehicle fot 
90. 
Documents. 
91. 
Documents related to property searches of Jeffrey Epstein's properties. Also objected to 
as Improper/Confidential financial information. 
92. 
Arrest Warrant of 
93. 
Police report regarding 
picking up money dated 11-28-04. 
94. 
List of Trilateral Commission Members of 2003. 
8 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585427

95. Alan Dershowitz Letter dated 4-19-06 and Statute 90.410. Also objected to as possible 
attorney/client privilege. 
96. Guy Fronstin letter dated 4-17-06. Also objected to as possible attorney/client privilege. 
97. Jeffrey Epstein Account Information. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial 
information. 
98. Jeffrey Epstein Criminal Closeout Sheet. 
99. Jeffrey Epstein Polygraph Test and Results. 
100. 
Victim's GED testing information and results. Edwards is the only alleged victim in 
this case. 
101. JEGE, Inc. Passenger Manifest. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly 
make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit 
identification. 
102. Hyperion Air Passenger Manifest. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly 
make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit 
identification. 
103. Flight information for 
104. Passenger List Palm Beach flights 2005. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot 
possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this 
exhibit identification. 
105. Jeffrey Epstein notepad notes. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly 
make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit 
identification. 
106. Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case. 
107. Jeffrey Epstein 5th Amendment Speech. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot 
possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this 
exhibit identification. 
108. Reiter letter to ICrisher dated 5-1-06. 
109. Jail receipts of Jeffrey Epstein. 
110. 
Police Report dated 11-28-04. 
1 1 1. 
Compulsory Medial Examination of victim, CMA. Edwards is the only alleged victim 
9 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7" Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585428

in this case. 
112. 
Victim's school records and transcripts. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this 
case. 
113. 
Victim Notification letter dated 7-9-08. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this 
case. 
114. 
Victim's employment records from IHOP. Edwards is the only alleged victim in this 
case. 
115. Police report of Juan Alessi theft at Jeffrey Epstein's home. 
116. 
Victim's Medical Records from 
Edwards is the only 
alleged victim in this case. 
117. 
Victim's Medical Records from 
Edwards is the only alleged 
victim in this case. 
118. 
Victim's Medical Records from 
Edwards is the only 
alleged victim in this case. 
119. 
Victim's Medical Records from
. 
Edwards is the only 
alleged victim in this case. 
120. 
Victim's Medical Records fro 
Edwards is the only alleged victim in 
this case. 
121. All surveillance conducted by law enforcement on Jeffrey Epstein's home. 
122. Emails received from Palm Beach Records related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
123. All items listed on the Palm Beach Police Property Report Lists. 
124. All items taken in the execution of the search warrant of Jeffrey Epstein's home: 358 El 
Brillo Way, Palm Beach FL 33480. 
125. All copies of convictions related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
126. Jeffrey Epstein criminal records. 
127. All documents produced by Palm Beach Police Department prior to the deposition of 
Detective Recarey. 
128. 
Photographs of all persons listed on Victims' Witness Lists Edwards is the only alleged 
victim in this case. 
10 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585429

129. Statements, deposition transcripts, videotaped depositions and transcripts taken in 
connection with this and all related cases and exhibits thereto. This is so overbroad that 
Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude 
anything under this exhibit identification. 
130. Any and all expert witness reports and/or records generated in preparation for this 
litigation by any party to this cause. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a 
determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit 
identification. 
131. Curriculum vitae of Dr. Ryan Hall. 
132. Any articles or publications of Dr. Ryan Hall. 
133. Any articles or publications of Dr. Richard Hall. 
134. Any articles or publications of Dr. L. Dennison Reed. 
135. All items and documentation review by Dr. L. Dennison Reed. 
136. Transcript and video (DVD) of IME of Victims. 
137. All exhibits to Dr. L. Demlison Reed's Deposition. 
138. All exhibits to Dr. Richard Hall's Deposition. 
139. All items and documents reviewed by Dr. Richard Hall. 
136. 
All items and documents reviewed by Dr. Ryan Hall. 
137. 
Demonstrative aids and exhibits including, but not limited to, anatomical charts, 
diagrams and models, surveys, photographs and similar material including blow-ups of the 
foresaid items. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as 
to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
138. 
All pleadings and attachments in the action under the Crime Victims Rights Act 
prosecuted by Bradley Edwards on behalf of victims of Epstein's criminal molestations. 
139. 
All attachments to Edwards's Motion for SummaryJudgment. 
140. 
All time records and hourly billing documentation produced in discovery. Also objected 
to unless and until such time as liability for attorneys' fees is determined. 
141. 
All deposition testimony and discovery responses by Epstein submitted in this action. 
This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or 
not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
I
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7d. Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585430

142. 
All pleadings filed by Epstein in the Rothstein Bankruptcy Proceeding. 
143. 
All submissions by Epstein in connection with the Rothstein deposition. 
144. 
All Settlement Agreements between Epstein and victims of his sexual molestations. 
145. 
Phone journal taken from Epstein's home and produced to the FBI by Alfredo 
Rodriguez. 
146. 
Photo depicting 
Ghislaine Maxwell, and Prince Andrew. 
147. 
Al flight logs for any Epstein owned or controlled aircraft. This is so overbroad that 
Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude 
anything under this exhibit identification. 
148. 
Epstein emails or correspondence with anyone related in any way to this case or related 
cases. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to 
whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 
149. 
Evidence of contributions to the Palm Beach Police Department. 
In addition to being irrelevant to the case at bench, many of the documents/items listed 
above are inadmissible hearsay. "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant 
while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter 
asserted." § 90.801(c) FLA. STAT. (2014). Next, even assuming that Edwards could get past the 
hearsay nature of the documents themselves, the information contained within the documents 
listed above is also hearsay, for which there is not an exception, as many of them contain 
contents that are entirely based upon prior statements made by individuals and other extrinsic 
documents; all of which undeniably do not fall into an exception. See Reichenberg v. Davis, 846 
So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[t]he problem here is that, in both reports, the authors simply 
related the substance of what the witnesses had told the authors. These witness's statements, 
even though contained within the business records, do not fall within the exception, because they 
were not based upon the personal knowledge of an agent of the "business." Id. at 1234). See also 
Harris v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Com'n, 495 So. 2d 806, 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Van 
12 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585431

Zant v. State, 372 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, any hearsay documents, and 
any reference or testimony related thereto, should be excluded. 
Next, these documents listed above irrefutably contain opinion statements about Epstein 
who is party to, and possible witness in, this case, rendering it improper opinion testimony about 
the credibility of a witness. Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Childers 
v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the court was faced with a similar issue, and in 
denying the admission of the information/documents, avowed: 
admission of the notice would have been similar to admitting an opinion by the 
State concerning Junior's character, truthfulness, and credibility. Such opinion 
testimony regarding a witness' reputation for truthfulness is clearly inadmissible. 
See Antone v. State, 382 So.2d 1205, 1213-14 (Fla. 1980) (holding improper a 
question of a witness which sought "to elicit the individual and personal view of 
the witness."); Hernandez v. State, 575 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) 
(holding that it was reversible error to admit testimony of police officers and 
teacher that sexual abuse victim was truthful. "A witness invades the jury's 
exclusive province when that witness gives his or her personal views of the 
credibility of another witness."); Alvarado v. State, 521 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla. 3d 
DCA 1988) (holding that an opinion of a witness concerning his or her belief as to 
the truthfulness of another witness "was clearly inadmissible."); Morrison v. 
State, 818 So.2d 432, 451 (Fla.2002) (holding that it was improper to allow 
personal opinion to establish reputation for truthfulness without laying a 
foundation based on knowledge of the witness' reputation in community for 
truthfulness); Wyatt v. State, 578 So.2d 811, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding 
that section 90.405, Florida Statutes, does not permit opinion testimony regarding 
evidence of character); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 405.2 at 258 ("Opinion 
testimony concerning a person's character has traditionally been inadmissible on 
the basis that it is too unreliable; it will be tainted by the underlying prejudice and 
bias of the person expressing the opinion."). 
Id. at 595-96. 
Finally, the above-listed documents would cause unfair prejudice. "'Unfair prejudice' has 
been described as `an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, 
though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which 
inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 
13 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585432

(Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). See also Canales v. 
Compania De Vapores ReaIma, S.A., 564 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (Any probative value 
of testimony about marriage proposal plaintiff purportedly made offering money to woman to 
many him so that he could avoid deportation, on issue of plaintiffs credibility, was far 
outweighed by its prejudicial effect); DeSantis v. Acevedo, 528 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) 
(Probative value of the defendant's cross-examination of the plaintiff and his main witness about 
prior unrelated incidents that insinuated that both the plaintiff and the witness had been 
dishonest was outweighed by prejudicial nature of questions (emphasis added)). Consequently, 
the above referenced items should be excluded. 
B. 
Any Argument, Statement, Evidence, or Comment Related to the Criminal Charges 
to which Epstein Plead or any Alleged Criminal Investigation(s). 
Since it is inadmissible, irrelevant, and immaterial to this suit, Epstein requests that 
Edwards be precluded from using any pleading, testimony, remarks, questions, documents, 
exhibits, items, investigation results, or arguments related in any way to any criminal 
investigations, accusations, or criminal charges as related to Epstein that might inform the jury of 
such facts and that Edwards further instruct his witnesses to omit such facts from their testimony. 
It is rudimentary that evidence of prior convictions, acquittals or arrests are inadmissible; 
especially in a civil action. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); 
Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As such, Epstein's conviction, as 
well as any testimony or evidence of any other criminal investigation, is inadmissible, as it is 
impermissibly being offered as "relevant solely to prove bad character" and would unduly 
inflame and prejudice the minds of the jury against Epstein. § 90.404(2) (a) FLA. STAT. (2016). 
"'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper 
basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at 
14 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585433

evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.' Wright v. 
State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 
"[E]ven if relevant, a trial court may not permit the collateral crime evidence to become 
an impermissible feature of the trial." Jacobs v. At!. Coast Ref, Inc., 165 So. 3d 714, 718 (Fla. 
4th DCA. 2015), reh'g denied (June 9, 2015) (citing Durousseau v. State, 55 So.3d 543, 551 (Fla. 
2010)). "Collateral crimes evidence becomes a feature of the trial when inquiry into the collateral 
crimes transcends the bounds of relevancy to the charge being tried and the prosecution devolves 
from development of facts pertinent to the main issue of guilt or innocence into an assault on the 
character of the defendant." Id. (citing Seavey v. State, 8 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) 
(internal quotations and citation omitted)). As this Court is aware, this is a Malicious Prosecution 
case that Edwards is prosecuting against Epstein. As such, this information has no probative 
value whatsoever to the elements necessary to prove either Edwards's claim or Epstein's 
defense. Furthermore, the criminal charges to which Epstein plead are not related to the 
underlying cases that Edwards was prosecuting against Epstein, as Edwards's clients were not 
alleged victims in the criminal case. Moreover, the criminal charges had no bearing whatsoever 
on the undertakings by Edwards and his law partner Scott Rothstein while RRA was prosecuting 
the cases. Accordingly, any pleading, testimony, remarks, questions, documents, exhibits, items, 
investigation results, or arguments related in any way to any criminal investigations, accusations, 
or criminal charges related to Epstein should be precluded from trial. 
C. 
Any reference to Epstein's Assertion of his Fifth Amendment Privilege to Questions 
that were not Directly Related to the Elements or Defenses to this Cause of Action. 
Epstein did not assert any privilege or otherwise refuse to answer any question related to 
why he filed a lawsuit against Edwards. Rather, Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment Privilege 
in response to discovery and deposition questioning in this matter when the requested 
15 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585434

information concerned allegations of sexual exploitation of minors. While these questions were 
clearly designed to inflame and prejudice this case, said allegations are undeniably irrelevant to 
the case at hand pursuant to § 90.401 of the Florida Statutes, and to the extent that Edwards 
could possibly try to establish that this line of discovery is relevant, any alleged "probative value 
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the 
jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403 FLA. STAT. (2013); Dailey v. 
Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). "'Unfair prejudice' 
has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, 
though not necessarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which 
inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions.' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 
(Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Were any of the above 
facts made known to the jury, it would be highly improper and prejudicial to Epstein. Moreover, 
this evidence is being offered, impermissibly, "solely to prove bad character." 
Finally, the law is clear that a party cannot be found liable solely upon the basis of 
reliance on Fifth Amendment; there must be other evidence. Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 
(1976); Lasalle Banks Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995); National Acceptance 
Co.of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1963) (assertion of Fifth Amendment in an 
answer to a complaint does not constitute an admission of the allegations and does not relieve the 
plaintiff of the need to adduce proof). Here, Edwards is suing Epstein for Malicious Prosecution. 
When asked in deposition why he filed suit and upon what facts he based this decision, Epstein 
answered Edwards's questioning; he did not invoke his rights as to the issues germane to this 
litigation. See Deposition Transcript of Jef•ey Epstein. When Edwards's inquiry turned to 
questions regarding Epstein's criminal case and the facts surrounding any allegations made by 
16 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585435

females against Epstein, which are irrefutably not an issue in this civil case (or even necessary to 
an element of Edwards's causes of action), Epstein asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege. 
Furthermore, as this Court is aware, Edwards is, and throughout this litigation has been, 
actively pursuing a quasi-criminal matter, Doe v. United States, in the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the Doe Case, claimants, through Edwards, are 
seeking to rescind Mr. Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Edwards's stated goal in the 
Doe case is to expose Mr. Epstein to comprehensive criminal liability. It is readily apparent from 
the pleadings, discovery requests, witness list, and exhibit list filed in this matter, that Edwards is 
doing, and has done, little more in this case than use it as a tool through which to re-litigate 
closed cases or attempt to circumvent rules and constitutional privileges afforded to Epstein in an 
effort to further his motives in the Doe case. In the instant action, Edwards also seeks to deflect 
attention away from the glaring deficiencies in his case in chief with immaterial and irrelevant 
depiction of Mr. Epstein as someone culpable of numerous federal criminal offenses involving 
sexual misconduct with minor females, several of whom Mr. Edwards intends to call as 
witnesses in his case-in-chief. See Exhibit and Witness list. As such, any reference to Epstein's 
invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding questions concerning these immaterial 
and irrelevant issues should not be admitted. 
D. 
The Use of any Derogating Adjectives when Referencing Epstein. 
Edwards has continually referenced Epstein by the use of provoking and offensive 
misnomers, such as "billionaire pedophile" or "convicted child molester." Such commentary is 
inappropriate, and if Edwards did so at trial it would irrefutably be done solely to impermissibly 
"inflame() the jury or appeal() improperly to the jury's emotions."' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 
277 (Fla. 2009). Such name-calling constitutes improper conduct by counsel and reversible 
17 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 
EFTA00585436

error. Schubert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (defense counsel's 
inflammatory and improper remarks to jury about plaintiff, his witnesses, and counsel warranted 
new trial.). Improper comments by trial counsel, even when not objected to at trial, constitute 
reversible error if they impair the jury's calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence 
and result in an unfair trial. Moore v. Taylor Concrete & Supply Co., Inc., 553 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 
1st DCA 1989); Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). As 
such, preventing Edwards from doing so at the outset can avoid such issues. 
Likewise, Epstein's criminal conviction, and status as a registered sex offender, is 
inadmissible by law. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company, 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Kelley v. 
Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As such, Epstein's conviction, as well as 
any testimony or evidence of any other criminal investigation, is inadmissible, as it is 
impermissibly being offered as "relevant solely to prove bad character" and would unduly 
inflame and prejudice the minds of the jury against Epstein, as would any pejorative that 
Edwards may choose to use. § 90.404(2) (a) FLA. STAT. (2016). As explained above, Edwards 
seeks to depict Mr. Epstein as someone culpable of numerous federal criminal offenses involving 
sexual misconduct with minor females to further his pursuits in this case and in the Doe case. 
Consequently, such inapposite commentary from Edwards, his counsel, or his witnesses, is 
impermissible. 
Any Reference to any Cases Against Epstein Which were not Prosecuted by Bradley 
J. Edwards. 
While it foreseeable that a limited amount of the information regarding Edwards's 
prosecution of the three cases against Epstein could potentially be germane to the issues in this 
case, it would be impermissible to use any such information solely to impermissibly "inflame[] 
the jury or appeal[] improperly to the jury's emotions,"' or "solely to prove bad character." 
IS 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585437

Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 
2009). Moreover, any mention of or use of information from any other case is absolutely 
improper, as such information is unfairly prejudicial. Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Guilder, 23 So. 
3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Long Term Care Found., Inc. v. Martin, 778 So. 2d 1100, 1102-03 
(Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (allegations in a different lawsuit against defendant were not relevant and 
were highly prejudicial "under section 90.403, Florida Statutes, any relevance the complaint 
might have had was outweighed by the unfair prejudice against the center. The complaint 
contained bare allegations against the center in the form of rank hearsay."). "It is inconsistent 
with the notions of fair trial for the state to force a defendant to resurrect a prior defense against a 
crime for which the defendant is not on trial." Jacobs v. AtL Coast Ref, Inc., 165 So. 3d 714 
(Fla. 4th DCA. 2015) (finding that "because the prior case was settled, none of the allegations 
therein were proven."). 
As seen from Edwards's trial witness list, and his exhibit list items above, it is apparent 
that he intends to use as much information from other cases as possible solely to impermissibly 
"inflame[] the jury or appeal[] improperly to the jury's emotions,"' or "solely to prove bad 
character." Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 
(Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "(I)f the introduction of the evidence tends in actual operation to produce a 
confusion in the minds of the jurors in excess of the legitimate probative effect of such evidence 
if it tends to obscure rather than illuminate the true issue before the jury then such evidence 
should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandro, 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) 
(citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)). See also Agrofoliajes, S.A. v. 
Du Pont De 
Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by 
prejudicial effect when evidence improperly becomes focus of trial); Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. 
19 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585438

Co., 789 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (probative value of bicyclist's status as an illegal alien 
was outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading of the jury, as the 
evidence and instruction concerning status as an illegal alien improperly changed the focus of the 
jury's attention). Indeed, Edwards has not even listed his own three clients for whom he was 
prosecuting the cases against Epstein while a partner at RRA as witnesses in his case in chief; 
further establishing his intent. ] 
A trial court's discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence "is limited by the rules 
of evidence and applicable case law." Thigpen v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., 990 So. 2d 639, 645 
(Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla.2003); Hayes v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., 933 So. 2d 124, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Deville v. State, 917 So. 2d 1058, 
1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Dixon v. State, 911 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Reed v. 
State, 883 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its 
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...." § 90.403 FLA. 
STAT. (2016). Here, these extrinsic cases are not relevant to the cause of action that Edwards has 
brought against Epstein and are merely intended to do little more than mislead the jury. 
F. 
Testimony From Any Witness Without Direct, Firsthand Knowledge And Relevant 
Testimony Relating To The Elements Of The Cause Of Action And Defense In This Case. 
It is evident from Edwards's discovery responses and pleadings filed in this matter that he 
would like to re-litigate his previous cases against Epstein, and by doing so attempt to inflame 
and unfairly prejudice the jury. Further evidence of this fact is readily ascertainable from 
Edwards's witness list, as many persons listed thereon have no connection to Edwards's 
Malicious Prosecution claim and their testimony is clearly irrelevant to the elements of such a 
claim. Their testimony is obviously intended to do little more than unfairly inflame and 
prejudice the jury with irrelevant information from Epstein's criminal case and prior civil cases; 
20 
Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
EFTA00585439