EFTA00804571

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH 
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
) 
) 
) 
Petitioner/Counter-Defendant, 
) 
) 
vs. 
No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG 
) 
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, ) 
and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, 
) 
individually, 
) 
) 
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. 
) 
) 
West Palm Beach, Florida 
November 2nd, 2018 
10:25 a.m. - 1:06 p.m. 
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Epstein's Motion to 
Allow Amendment to Exhibit List, et al. 
The above-styled cause came on for hearing 
before the Honorable Donald W. Hafele, Presiding 
Judge, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, West 
Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, on the 2nd 
day of November, 2018. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804571

L 
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 
APPEARANCES: 
For The Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant: 
LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 930 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE 
and KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH, ESQUIRE 
For The Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff: 
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, 
P.A. 
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 
By JOHN "JACK" SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 
and DAVID P. VITALE, JR., ESQUIRE 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804572

3 
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 
THEREUPON, the following proceedings were had. 
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. 
MR. LINK: Good morning, Your Honor. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Good morning, Your Honor. 
MR. SCAROLA: Good morning. 
THE COURT: Thank you for appearing on 
relatively short notice and trying to narrow 
some of the issues that we are dealing with as 
we prepare for December 4th. 
I trust that both sides received the 
notice that I sent out regarding this media 
company that seeks to film the trial. Just as 
a precursor to any objections that are going to 
be filed, if any, I have had this situation --
MR. SCAROLA: Can we be seated, sir? I'm 
sorry. 
THE COURT: Sure. I apologize. 
MR. SCAROLA: No, no, quite all right. 
I'm getting old. 
THE COURT: Yeah, that's okay. 
MR. SCAROLA: Older. 
THE COURT: What I was going to say is 
that I had this come up one other time, not 
with this company but with a company that 
typically requests this, and I believe 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804573

4 
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 
requested it for the prior trial. 
And in that other matter, it was a medical 
malpractice case where both attorneys or each 
side came to me and said that they had been 
receiving competing emails from this company, 
essentially threatening them that if they 
didn't order their products then the other side 
would, and the other side would have a 
significant advantage at trial under those 
circumstances. 
So both sides -- and it was a sensitive 
issue regarding a child that was the subject of 
the alleged malpractice, and both the doctor 
and the child's family did not want the case 
videotaped. But, I was running up against 
them, that being the media company, not having 
an attorney, both sides not wanting it, finding 
and seeing those competing emails that they 
said were completely and entirely untrue, that 
being the lawyers, who were very reputable 
counsel on both sides. 
And so I made an initial ruling that 
because both sides believed that they were not 
being told the absolute truth, and because this 
company was not a true media outlet but, in 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804574

5 
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 
fact, was a for-profit trial service company, I 
made an initial ruling that I wasn't going to 
allow it to happen. 
Well, that ended up in a front-page 
article about the -- that I had set up some 
type of a -- it escapes me now -- some type of 
a confrontation where the first amendment was 
being implicated, and people who I didn't know 
were weighing in on my attempt to silence the 
media, and all the rest of the stuff. 
So the media company then, I believe, 
retained counsel and came in and said, okay, we 
want to do it, and because the Florida rule 
requires or states that one camera and one 
camera operator minimal is to be permitted, I 
did permit it. The "PS" of that story, which 
was never reported, was three days after the 
commencement of the five-week trial, they left. 
Why? Well, you can draw your own 
conclusions. Mine, I believe is a 
well-reasoned hypothesis, and that is nobody 
ordered their stuff. So since then, whenever I 
have this request, I require the company, if 
it's going to be done, to pledge to the Court 
in writing that they will remain for the entire 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804575

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 
duration of the trial. And if they don't, then 
they have essentially availed themselves of 
being sanctioned for fraudulent representation 
to the Court, because they become a part of the 
process by rule. 
The bottom line is there has to be, as I 
understand it, at least one camera and one 
camera operator at the court -- or in the 
courtroom, by rule. It doesn't say which 
camera operator or which camera or whose camera 
operator or whose camera, but my understanding 
is that the rule requires that, if there is a 
request by the media. 
Now, again, how that's defined, it just 
came to me as I was walking out to bring it to 
your attention and to advise you of my 
experience in those types of situations. And 
this company, I believe, is part of the email 
says that they were going to do this if they 
were permitted, gavel to gavel, so to speak; 
from the beginning to the end of the trial. 
They may have known of my other concern 
because Ms. Oats, O-A-T-S, is in charge of 
these requests from court administration. So 
again, because I thought of it as we were 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804576

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 
walking out, I wanted to make you aware of it. 
And, again, I think I put a deadline in 
the notice to file any objections you may have, 
and to set it for an 8:45 if there are any 
objections within the time frame set forth, but 
we don't need any further discussion on that. 
I just 
of the 
I 
wanted to share with you, though, some 
things that we deal with. 
believe it's a rule of judicial 
administration that I'm speaking about. I 
could find it, if necessary, but I believe that 
we don't need to go further on that. 
Okay. So we're here today to discuss the 
proposed additional exhibits. The witness that 
was the potential cause of concern has been 
withdrawn for the purposes of the action by 
Mr. Edwards against Mr. Epstein, so that is 
moot at this juncture. And we'll launch into 
the discussion relative to the proposed 
exhibits. 
I don't know if -- I know Mr. Scarola was 
busy this morning and likely trying to prepare 
for whatever 
judge today, 
had a chance 
hearing he 
so I don't 
to discuss 
had in front of another 
know how much you've 
this and whether or not 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804577

8 
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 
there has been any common ground that's been 
reached as it concerns, one, the procedure that 
we're going to utilize in terms of this 
particular exercise or, two, the threshold 
issue of whether or not any additional exhibits 
are going to be permitted at all. 
So, Mr. Link, as the movant, I will let 
you speak first, then Mr. Scarola, I'll follow 
up with you. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, if I might, 
there are a few of these exhibits that we are 
not objecting to, and it may be helpful if I 
identify those. And when I say "we are not 
objecting," we are not objecting on the basis 
that these are late-listed exhibits. 
THE COURT: I understand. 
MR. SCAROLA: There may very well be 
evidentiary objections that we have, but on the 
submission to the Court --
THE COURT: Okay. Let me get to it 
because, again, in viewing it last night, I 
should have tabbed it, but I didn't. But I 
think I have it. 
MR. LINK: Your Honor, I have a tabbed 
version, if that helps you. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804578

9 
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 
THE COURT: I've got it right in front of 
me. But thank you very much. It may have, if 
I wasn't able to find it as quickly as I 
luckily was. Okay. 
MR. SCAROLA: This is Epstein's supplement 
to motion to allow amendment to exhibit list. 
THE COURT: I have it. 
MR. SCAROLA: And on page 2 of the 
attachment, the amended exhibit list, at the 
bottom there are two items in blue. 
THE COURT: I'm with you; 26 and 27, for 
the record. 
MR. SCAROLA: That's correct, 26 and 27, 
for the record. 
And those were documents that were 
obtained by the defense subsequent to the due 
date for the exhibit list, and we do not object 
on the basis of late disclosure to those two 
items. 
THE COURT: Remind me who 
is? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 
, Your 
Honor, is one of Mr. Epstein's victims. She 
has had a prominent public role with respect to 
accusations against Mr. Epstein, and is the 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804579

10 
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 
victim of Mr. Epstein, who has alleged that she 
was transported to various locations around the 
country and outside the country, and that she 
was prostituted to third parties by 
Mr. Epstein. 
So there are allegations against a number 
of prominent individuals that were made by 
Ms. 
that formed the basis for the 
issuance of subpoenas or the discussion about 
the issuance of subpoenas by Mr. Edwards that 
Mr. Epstein alleged had no basis in good faith 
and were intended solely to "gin up the claims 
against Mr. Epstein." 
THE COURT: Is she now a resident of 
MR. SCAROLA• 
THE COURT: Okay. That helped to refresh 
my recollection. 
MR. LINK: And Your Honor may recall that, 
at least as of the last time we visited this 
issue, Your Honor had indicated that you were 
going to let Mr. Edwards talk about his three 
clients, and none of the others unless they 
made a connection, and she fit within that 
category. We listed this for a different 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804580

11 
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 
purpose. But I know we're not doing the 
evidence today. 
THE COURT: Right. Okay. All I'm getting 
to is 26 and 27 is not being objected to based 
upon late filing. 
What about 28? 
MR. SCAROLA: Same with regard to 28, Your 
Honor. 
THE COURT: And 29? 
MR. SCAROLA: 29 appears to be some form 
of argument. And I haven't seen this 
comparison, but I assume --
MR. LINK: Your Honor, we withdrew it from 
our exhibit list that we filed, I think it was 
last week. 
THE COURT: Okay. So that's been 
withdrawn. 
MR. SCAROLA: Okay. All right. 
THE COURT: So we can put a mark there. 
Thank you. 
MR. LINK: We're looking at the exhibit 
list, Your Honor, that we submitted back in 
March or April. I think it was March. We have 
removed items from this list. 
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm looking at 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804581

12 
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 
this, this is May 2nd filing. 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir, that -- we actually 
pared that down even further. 
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have that with 
you? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: All right. Has Mr. Scarola, 
Mr. Vitale received a copy of that? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. Yes. We filed that 
as part of our compliance with this Court's 
pretrial order, which then we discussed 
yesterday. 
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Scarola may still 
be working off the May 2 filing. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yeah, that's the one that I 
was working off of. 
MR. LINK: I'm sorry, 28 and 29 are the 
only two that we removed. 
THE COURT: 28 and 29 are the only two you 
removed? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. So 28's 
been withdrawn. 
But, Mr. Scarola, are you going to seek 
its admission otherwise? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804582

13 
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. SCAROLA: If they are listing the, 
the --
THE COURT: Numbers 26 and 27. 
MR. SCAROLA: If they're listing 26 and 
27, then we would probably want to use the 
transcript; yes, sir. 
THE COURT: All right. So, what's your 
thoughts, Mr. Link? 
MR. LINK: I don't know how he can use an 
exhibit that we have withdrawn from the list. 
It's not on his exhibit list. 
THE COURT: I tend to agree. 
MR. SCAROLA: Well, the --
THE COURT: And let me explain why, to 
give you a basis for my, at least, proposed 
ruling. And that is we're here primarily today 
to discuss late-filed exhibits. And if the 
counter-plaintiff, who I'll refer to the best 
that I can without confusing the names, 
Mr. Edwards, has not listed a given exhibit, 
then it's my inclination that what's good for 
the goose is good for the gander, and that is 
that I'm not going to simply allow an addition 
at now this even-later juncture. 
And I will note for the record, again, as 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804583

14 
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 
we did yesterday, that because the parties were 
aware of the August order that was -- and I 
take responsibility -- erroneously sent out in 
its form, the announcement of the trial was 
appropriate, but the form of saying it was 
contrary to specific rules that I had entered 
earlier relative to the addition of any 
exhibits or witnesses, as well as any 
discovery. 
And, again, that was agreed to by the 
parties, that they recognized that in August, 
but chose not to deal with that particular 
issue until later. So I'm not holding it 
against either party that it was not brought to 
my attention earlier. 
But if we're dealing with late exhibits, 
again, I am inclined to accept a withdrawal and 
not accept a late -- at this point now, later 
filing or later announcement or listing of an 
exhibit by the other side. 
Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: I just want to be sure that 
Your Honor is focusing on what it is we are 
talking about here. The specific exhibits. 
27 is a notice of filing the transcript of 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804584

15 
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 
26 is that audio of the interview. And 
all that we're talking about with regard to 28 
is a transcript of the audio that is attached 
to the notice that was filed. I don't know 
that that makes any difference to Your 
THE COURT: I don't know -- yeah, 
the difference between -- now that I'm 
Honor --
what's 
looking 
at it? I was just giving a global ruling as 
what I believed to be fair in terms of any late 
exhibits. But I don't know what the difference 
is between 27 and 28. Can somebody explain 
that to me from the Epstein side, please? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 28 was a transcript 
that we had the court reporter prepare for us 
because of some blanks that were in 
Mr. Scarola's that said inaudible, and we've 
withdrawn that exhibit, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: No, 27 --
MR. LINK: I'm sorry. I thought you asked 
the difference in 27 and 28. 
27 was prepared by Mr. Scarola's office. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MR. LINK: 28, because there were portions 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804585

16 
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 
of the transcript that said "inaudible," we 
hired a court reporter to listen very 
carefully, and see if she could fill in those 
blanks. And so we're withdrawing ours as an 
exhibit, and Mr. Scarola, it's been on his 
exhibit list, I think a long time, they've 
submitted it to the Court. 
MR. SCAROLA: I think it has been also, 
yes. 
MR. LINK: So, that's the --
THE COURT: Okay. So is 28 simply an 
addition of what Mr. Scarola had on the exhibit 
list? 
MR. LINK: It was a separate transcript 
prepared by a court reporter that we hired, 
because the transcript that Mr. Scarola 
submitted --
THE COURT: I now understood the 
distinction. What I'm trying to get to, 
though, is 28 part of what was already listed 
by Mr. Scarola in his exhibit list? 
MR. LINK: Sort of, yes, because the court 
reporter was filling in blanks. 
THE COURT: Okay. So I think that perhaps 
it's probably going to be helpful if there 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804586

17 
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 -- and if there is an official court 
reporter who has listened to that audiotape and 
is qualified to fill in those blanks as 
indicated. It would be perhaps a completeness 
issue that could be argued would make that a 
better transcript than an unofficial 
transcript. 
MR. LINK: I think that would be true if 
we had not withdrawn it from the list, Your 
Honor. I don't know how an exhibit that we 
withdrew can be used for completeness by the 
plaintiff. 
THE COURT: Okay. But maybe I'm still 
misunderstanding. I thought you said that that 
was listed --
MR. LINK: No, sir, 27 is listed on 
theirs, not 28. 
THE COURT: All right. 
MR. SCAROLA: All exhibits listed by the 
defendant are listed by the plaintiff. 
THE COURT: Yeah, but that catchall is --
MR. LINK: Now we're going to catchalls, 
Judge. 
THE COURT: Yeah. And the catchall was a 
primary focus of your motion to strike. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804587

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: I remember being verbally 
beaten by Mr. Scarola. 
THE COURT: That's okay. As long as it 
was not listed as an exhibit prior and it's 
being withdrawn, as far as the Court is 
concerned, I am going to strike it and/or allow 
it to be withdrawn, and it will be withdrawn. 
And so reliance will have to be made with 
respect to the original tape and the transcript 
that was provided by whomever it was that was 
provided. 
MR. LINK: Essentially, Your Honor, we 
figured the tape is the best evidence, so that 
was our thing. 
THE COURT: All right. I'll go along with 
that. 
MR. LINK: Your Honor, I was going to 
do -- I'm going to do a presentation, but 
Exhibit 24 was listed because Mr. Berger, last 
time, was going to be having surgery during 
trial. If counsel represents he'll be here, 
neither one of us need his transcript. We can 
obviously use it as cross, but we don't need to 
make it an exhibit. 
THE COURT: Do you expect him to testify 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804588

19 
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 
live? 
MR. SCAROLA: I am told by Mr. Berger that 
he is unavailable the first week, but expects 
to be available the second week. 
THE COURT: Okay. Then I'm going to take 
that as that he will testify live. We'll call 
him out of turn, if necessary, but the 
transcript itself as evidence will apparently 
not be necessary. 
MR. LINK: Yeah, that was why I listed it, 
in case he was unavailable. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, deposition 
transcripts don't get introduced into evidence 
anyway. They are published to the jury. 
THE COURT: Let me -- they are published 
and there may be a filing if there's a 
necessity to have it filed, but... 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: It's at least better to 
understand why it's listed, than not. If it 
was to caution against its unavailability 
potentially then that was filed. 
All right, what's next to be addressed? 
MR. LINK: Anything else, Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: Those are the only ones that 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804589

20 
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 
we're prepared to stipulate to. 
THE COURT: Any of these other yellow ones 
that need to be addressed, or... So what I'm 
understanding is, the rest need to be 
addressed. Those are the only ones that we had 
a relative stipulation? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: All right. 
MR. LINK: May it please the Court. 
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 
MR. LINK: The Court's pleased? Always 
pleased to see us. Fair enough. 
Your Honor, I just, as a point of 
clarification, Mr. Scarola handed us a document 
that discusses the 47 exhibits and it was my 
understanding that today we were going to be 
addressing my motion to add exhibits to my 
exhibit list, not the 47. Because the 47 
require an in camera inspection by this Court, 
as well as argument as to whether if there was 
a privilege, it was waived by crime-fraud 
exception, turning them over to somebody else, 
various other reasons. 
So I'm here today to focus on my motion 
THE COURT: Right. All I'm --
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804590