EFTA00792811

61 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MS. ROCKENBACH: With regard to the 
Fifth Amendment? 
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. 
That's correct. I want to make sure. But 
not with regard to any probable cause 
questions, like those that were asked in his 
depositions, to which he did not invoke the 
Fifth Amendment. 
They were relevant questions to this 
action. He will not be invoking the Fifth 
as to those questions. But yes, consistent 
with the questions that were asked of him in 
his deposition, to which he invoked the 
Fifth, he will be doing that again. 
THE COURT: And you're not, at this 
point -- because I know that the 
counter-plaintiff Edwards was concerned 
about retracting any of his Fifth Amendment 
invocations. That is not planned at this 
juncture? 
MS. ROCKENBACH: That's correct, Your 
Honor. 
THE COURT: So that obviates, then, the 
need for Mr. Scarola to redepose 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792871

62 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Mr. Epstein? 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct. 
THE COURT: Mr. Scarola, thank you for 
your patience. You may proceed, sir. 
Thank you, Ms. Rockenbach and Mr. Link, 
for your written and oral presentations. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, Your 
Honor. If you don't mind, I'm going to 
stand at the podium that says, Plaintiff. 
Your Honor, there is a very fundamental 
disagreement between present counsel for 
Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards. You heard 
Mr. Link say -- and I think I took down the 
quote exactly -- we have never challenged 
that these three cases were legitimate 
cases. 
Well, I can understand why it is that 
at this point in the litigation, Mr. Link 
wishes that they had never challenged that 
these three cases were legitimate cases. 
But the fact of the matter is that 
Bradley Edwards was sued for ginning up, 
fabricating, constructing those three cases, 
and others, as a knowing participant in 
Florida's largest ever Ponzi scheme, that 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792872

63 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
is, there were two clearly identifiable 
allegations of wrongdoing contained within 
the complaint filed by Bradley Edwards. 
He was alleged to have fabricated these 
cases. And it was alleged that the reason 
why he fabricated the cases was as a knowing 
participant in the Ponzi scheme. 
I can provide the court -- and I will 
do that -- with a copy of the complaint that 
was filed in this action. We've highlighted 
various allegations in that complaint, Your 
Honor, that specifically include the 
assertions that Bradley Edwards was involved 
in manufacturing, fabricating, ginning up 
these claims. 
In paragraph seven, it is alleged that 
L.M. was an essential participant in the 
scheme referenced in this complaint, by 
among other things, substantially changing 
prior written sworn testimony so as to 
assist the defendants, plural, in promoting 
their fraudulent scheme for the promise of a 
multi-million dollar recovery relevant to 
civil actions, defined below, involving 
Epstein, which was completely out of 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792873

64 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
proportion to her alleged damages. 
If we go to paragraph 30, "By using the 
civil actions against Epstein as bait and 
fabricating settlements regarding same, 
Rothstein and others were able to lure 
investors into Rothstein's lair and bilked 
them of millions of dollars which, in turn, 
were used to fund the litigation against 
Epstein for the sole purpose of continuing 
the massive Ponzi scheme." 
"The sole purpose of continuing the 
massive Ponzi scheme." These weren't 
legitimate claims. They were being used 
solely to fund the Ponzi scheme, according 
to the allegations. 
Thirty-one. "As part of this scheme, 
Rothstein and the litigation team" -- and 
the litigation team is defined in the 
complaint as Brad Edwards. 
Paragraph E: -- "utilized the judicial 
process, including, but not limited to, 
unreasonable and unnecessary discovery for 
the sole purpose of furthering the Ponzi 
scheme." 
Forty. "Edwards filed amended answers 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792874

65 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
to interrogatories in the state court 
matters, E.W. and L.M., and listed 
additional high-profile witnesses that would 
allegedly be called at trial, including, but 
not limited to:" And then various 
individuals are identified. 
And then paragraph 41. "The sole 
purpose of the scheduling of these 
depositions was, again, to pump up the cases 
to investors. There is no evidence to date 
that any of these individuals had or have 
any knowledge regarding RRA's civil 
actions." 
THE COURT: For the record, that's a 
quote from paragraph 41, as opposed to 
argument. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. Sir. I'm 
sorry. 
If we go to page 18 of the complaint, 
subparagraph H. "Rothstein" -- and again, 
this is a quote. 
"Rothstein and the litigation team knew 
or should have known that their three filed 
cases were weak and had minimal value for 
the following reasons." 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792875

66 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Those reasons are listed. 
Again, questioning the legitimacy of 
the claims. 
Page 21, paragraph 44. "The actions 
described in paragraph 42 above herein had 
no legitimate purpose in pursuing the civil" 
litigations (sic) "against Epstein, but 
rather were meant to further the fraudulent 
scheme and criminal activity of Rothstein." 
Paragraph 46, the last line. "RRA and 
the attorneys in the civil actions" --
Please remember, the civil action is a 
defined term in the complaint. It's L.M., 
E.W. and Jane Doe's claims -- "needed to 
create a fiction that included extraordinary 
damages. However, the actual facts behind 
her action would never support such 
extraordinary damages." 
Going down to the last sentence in 
subparagraph A. "Under the circumstances, 
her claim for damages against Epstein, one 
of L.M.'s many johns during that same 
period, would be so incredible and certainly 
not likely to produce the extraordinary 
settlements promised to RRA's investors." 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792876

67 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Paragraph 49 of page 27, second 
sentence. "Rather than evaluating and 
resolving the cases based on the merits, 
that is, the facts, which included 
knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual 
actions by each of the claimants and 
substantial pre-Epstein psychological and 
emotional conditions," et cetera. 
So again, the allegation is that these 
children were knowledgeable, voluntary and 
consensual participants. 
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. My 
memory is good, but not great. The three 
litigants that Mr. Edwards represented and 
perhaps still represents -- L.M., E.W. and 
Jane Doe -- were they all allegedly 
underaged at the time of these encounters? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir, they were. So 
that obviously, as a matter of law, they 
were incapable of consenting. 
The last sentence I want to reference 
in this case, Your Honor, appears at page 
30. The last sentence in paragraph 52, in 
order to continue to bring in moneys from 
investors, Rothstein and other 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792877

68 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
co-conspirators used the civil actions 
against Epstein, along with other 
manufactured lawsuits, as a means of 
obtaining massive amounts of money." 
So when opposing counsel tells you, We 
have never challenged that these three cases 
were legitimate, again, while I understand 
why they wish that were true, that is not 
true. 
And when Mr. Epstein was deposed in 
this action, Mr. Epstein was asked about 
what he meant when he testified that these 
cases were ginned up. And what he said 
was -- referring to L.M., E.W. and Jane 
Doe -- what he said was, Well, when I said 
ginned up, I meant manufactured, fabricated 
cases. 
And the assertion is made that he never 
asserts the Fifth Amendment with regard to 
matters that are relevant to probable cause, 
as to whether he had a legitimate basis to 
claim that Bradley Edwards fabricated these 
cases. 
Page 34, the deposition of March 17, 
2010 at line 23, quote, Specifically, what 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792878

69 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
are the allegations against you which you 
contend Mr. Edwards ginned up? 
Answer: "I would like to answer that 
question. A, many of the files and 
documents that we've requested from 
Mr. Edwards and the Rothstein firm are still 
unavailable. 
"With respect to anything that I can 
point to today, I'm, unfortunately, going to 
have to take the Fifth Amendment on that, 
the Sixth and Fourteenth." 
Now, that's just one very obvious 
example where he's asked directly, what are 
the allegations that you claim in your 
complaint are ginned up, and he refuses to 
answer the question on basis of the Fifth 
Amendment privilege. There are many others. 
And the question is posed, which 
questions do I want to place before the jury 
as to which Mr. Edwards -- excuse me, I did 
it -- to which Mr. Epstein has asserted the 
Fifth Amendment, and the answer is every 
single one of them. 
THE COURT: And that's where we're 
going to have difficulty. As far as the 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792879

70 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Court is concerned the case that -- strike 
that. 
The question and answer that was just 
provided would be admissible. What we're 
talking about, Mr. Scarola, are questions 
that were cited in the motion and that the 
court has chosen not to read, that are of a 
graphic, sexual nature, and have, to my 
recollection, a general form of question, as 
opposed to specifics: Have you ever done 
certain things to minors? Have you ever 
been with prostitutes? Have you ever --
things of that nature. 
MR. SCAROLA: I don't recall that last 
question, but I understand the Court's -- I 
understand the Court's concern. 
THE COURT: Ms. Rockenbach's question. 
Again, I know you understand it, but I 
want to make sure that the record is clear, 
and that's this. I have an obligation, as 
both sides are well aware, to ensure that we 
are working on a level playing field to the 
extent that it is possible. 
I have the obligation, as 
Ms. Rockenbach points out, to be the 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792880

71 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
gatekeeper of evidence and to ensure to the 
best of my ability that we are not going to 
be engaging in pejorative name-calling types 
of questioning, nor are we going to get into 
inflammatory types of questioning just for 
the sole purpose of information. 
Now, I know you wouldn't do that. But 
at the same time, as advocates, your 
respective positions have to be clear-cut in 
favor of your respective clients. 
However, as I said earlier, it really 
becomes an issue of drilling down into the 
specifics before I can make rulings on the 
actual questions that are being sought to be 
introduced. 
So the global aspect of the Court's 
decision at this time, until I look at the 
actual questions, is essentially this. And, 
that is, that I'm going to permit -- and 
we've already gotten a stipulation on the 
record by Mr. Epstein's counsel, which I 
appreciate -- that is, he's not going to be 
receding from his Fifth Amendment 
invocations. He's not going to be changing 
his testimony, so as to necessitate further 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792881

72 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
discovery as it relates to his testimonial 
evidence that has already been presented. 
Therefore, those questions that deal 
with, for example, the question that you 
asked and answered, would be admissible. 
Those, because of the reasons that I stated 
earlier, would seem to make common sense to 
me and seems to be the thrust of the 
decisions of the court's, whether in Florida 
or outside of Florida -- the vast majority 
being outside of the state and some from the 
federal courts -- and, that is, that the 
Fifth Amendment cannot be used to take away 
Mr. Edwards' ability to prove his case or 
prove the probable cause element. 
So to the extent that it would be 
needed to go in front of the jury, any 
questions that deal with the issue of 
Mr. Epstein's lawsuits brought by 
Mr. Edwards on behalf of the respective 
clients, would be germane. And any 
invocation, such as what was illustrated 
here, would be germane and relevant and 
found to be admissible. That's the core 
ruling of the Court. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792882

73 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Now, when it comes to issues of general 
graphic questioning, such as what has been 
exemplified by way of the 
counter-defendant's motion, those will not 
be permitted. 
The closer question, and the one that I 
need to drill down further, is one of --
because the complaint -- and I appreciate 
the fact that you brought this with you 
today and provided it to me -- because the 
complaint delineates the nature of the 
allegations -- at least from a summary 
perspective of the three claims -- how much 
are we going to be able to introduce, if 
those questions were asked? I haven't 
memorized the deposition testimony. 
There were at least two depositions, if 
I'm not mistaken. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: Two depositions. I haven't 
memorized that testimony. 
But since the complaint -- let me cite 
to you exactly where we are -- where I am 
alluding to here. Page 18 and it states, 
"Rothstein and the litigation team knew or 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792883

74 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
should have known that their three filed 
cases were weak and had minimal value for 
the following reasons." 
Then it goes through "L.M. testified 
she had never had any type of sex with 
Epstein; worked at numerous clubs; is an 
admitted prostitute and call girl; has a 
history of illegal drug use" (pot, 
painkillers Xanax, Ecstasy); and continually 
asserted the Fifth Amendment during her 
depositions in order to avoid answering 
relevant but problem questions for her. 
"E.W. testified she worked 11 separate 
strip clubs, including Cheetah, which RRA 
represented and in which Rothstein may have 
owned an interest. And E.W. also worked at 
Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach, which, 
as the subject of a recent police raid, 
where dancers were allegedly selling 
prescription painkillers and drugs to 
customers and prostituting themselves. 
"Jane Doe (federal case) seeks 
$50 million from Epstein. She and her 
attorneys claim severe emotional distress as 
a result of her having voluntarily gone to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792884

75 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Epstein's home. She testified that there 
was never oral, and/or sexual intercourse; 
nor did she ever touch his genitalia. Yet, 
Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress 
well prior to meeting Epstein as a result of 
having witnessed her father murder his 
girlfriend's son. She was required to give 
sworn testimony in that matter and has 
admitted that she lied in sworn testimony. 
Jane Doe worked at two different strip 
clubs, including Platinum Showgirls in 
Boynton Beach." End quote. 
That's going to be a matter for further 
discussion, as far as what, if any, 
questions were related to those three 
individuals, and whether Mr. Epstein refused 
to answer those questions. 
Because if he did refuse to answer 
those questions specific to those three 
individuals, then the likelihood is -- again 
without prejudging -- I haven't looked at 
those questions -- that I will admit those 
into evidence, because they relate directly 
to Mr. Epstein's claim in his deposition and 
his repeated claim that these cases were, 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792885

76 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
quote, ginned up, end quote, and had no 
merit until rather recently. 
MR. SCAROLA: And in that regard, Your 
Honor, obviously, if the defense is going to 
take the position, as they have stated on 
the record now, that these were all 
legitimate claims, the extent to which we 
need to get into details with regard to what 
happened between Jeffrey Epstein and each of 
the three claimants against him is going to 
be very different than if they persist in 
challenging the legitimacy of the claims. 
Now, if they do that, if they are 
continuing to challenge the legitimacy of 
the claims, despite the on-the-record 
announcement that's just been made, this is 
going to be a very different trial than if 
they come in and say, In spite of the fact 
that Jeffrey Epstein alleged that Bradley 
Edwards fabricated these claims, we no 
longer take that position. We recognize the 
fact that these were, indeed, legitimate 
claims, very valuable legitimate claims. So 
valuable that we settled them for $5.5 
million in combination. And extremely 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792886

77 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
valuable claims because of the punitive 
damage exposure that Mr. Epstein confronted. 
How much we need to prove is dependent 
upon how much is contested. 
I doubt that they are going to concede 
punitive damage liability. 
THE COURT: Where are we on that? Has 
there been a ruling on the punitive damage 
claim? 
MR. SCAROLA: We have an amended 
permitted by the Court. There is a punitive 
damage claim pending against Mr. Epstein. 
There are pending issues with regard to 
the implications of Fifth Amendment 
assertions with regard to issues concerning 
net worth, because among the questions he's 
refused to answer are any questions relating 
to his net worth. 
THE COURT: Okay. But there is a 
current punitive damage claim? 
MR. SCAROLA: Absolutely. Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: I just want to make sure. 
The way it was written, it was a little bit 
cryptic in terms of pending. I didn't know 
if it was still a motion that needed to be 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792887

78 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
heard in that regard. That's all been taken 
care of. 
MR. LINK: I think Judge Crow entered 
that order, Your Honor. 
MR. SCAROLA: All over but the jury 
verdict. 
Your Honor, in the 10 minutes or nine 
minutes now that I have left before lunch, I 
want to go through something that I think 
will be helpful to the Court. 
In resolving some of the issues that 
Your Honor has focused on, which clearly are 
issues of concern with regard to how 
probable cause is proven in the context of a 
Fifth Amendment assertions on the part of 
the defendant who won't talk about some 
elements --
MR. LINK: Mr. Scarola, may I interrupt 
for one second? Do you mind? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
MR. LINK: Judge, I want to make sure 
this is clear, because I thought I stated 
this very clearly, but sometimes what comes 
our of my mouth isn't what's in my head. 
THE COURT: It's okay. Go ahead. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792888

79 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. LINK: Which is, I believe I very 
clearly said that we have never taken the 
position that during the time that 
Mr. Edwards was a sole practitioner, when 
these cases were filed up to the point that 
he joined Mr. Rothstein's firm, did we 
contend that he was doing anything that was 
inappropriate. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MR. LINK: During the time that he was 
at the Rothstein firm -- if you will read 
the complaint -- everything that Mr. Scarola 
just read to you was all during the time he 
was employed at Mr. Rothstein's firm. 
There is not an allegation in this 
complaint that relates to the time period 
from when they were filed until he joined 
Mr. Rothstein's firm. 
That's a very significant distinction, 
because we are absolutely going to say that 
Mr. Rothstein himself was using --
MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. Could I 
finish my argument in the few minutes that 
are left before we hear rebuttal? 
THE COURT: But it may be helpful to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792889

80 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
hear what Mr. Link is trying to suggest so 
that you can formulate your argument. 
MR. SCAROLA: I know exactly --
THE COURT: I will give him a minute. 
MR. LINK: I don't want to take long. 
I just want to clarify, because Mr. Scarola 
said that we have conceded that nothing was 
fabricated. 
What was fabricated was not the filing 
of the three lawsuits in 2008. It was that 
there were other claims in addition to those 
three, and that one of these three settled 
for 30 million, and that Mr. Epstein had 
offered $200 million. Those are the things 
that we were talking about during that time 
period. 
THE COURT: Well, the allegation, 
though, in subparagraph H, which was already 
read into the record -- I will read it 
again, quote, Rothstein and the litigation 
team -- parenthetically Mr. Scarola has 
suggested that the litigation team is 
defined as Mr. Edwards -- returning to the 
quoted provisions -- knew or should have 
known that their three filed cases were weak 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792890