EFTA00804571

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 
So the public, the point of these exhibits 
in category two go right to this allegation and 
right to this Court's ruling on November 29th, 
that Mr. Edwards can get on the stand and talk 
about his three clients and why their cases for 
alleged sexual molestation were so strong. 
So that's category two. And, Your Honor, 
I know we only have until noon. I will be glad 
to go through every exhibit, or Your Honor can 
take the book and go through every exhibit. 
And you're right, I'm trying to get as much 
information before the Court as I can. 
The third, the third category of 
documents -- and, Your Honor, you'll see there 
are dozens, by the way, of the incident, police 
reports, going all the way back to when they 
were juveniles. 
The third category of documents relate to 
Mr. Edwards' claim for damages. Mr. Edwards 
has made a claim that as a result of his being 
named in the lawsuit, Epstein versus Rothstein, 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804611

/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 
that he has suffered emotional distress, 
anxiety, every single day of his life since the 
day it happened. I took his deposition, he 
said every day, every day I have this 
incredible anxiety and stress and emotional 
distraught... 
THE COURT: Because Epstein brought --
MR. LINK: Because Epstein brought this 
claim in 2009. '8. '9. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: '9. 
MR. LINK: '9, thank you. 2009. 
So I took his deposition, as this Court 
allowed, at the end of 2017, eight years later. 
And he testified every single day since 2009 
when he was named in the suit, he has been 
suffering this traumatic anxiety, emotional 
distress, et cetera. 
So, we have exhibits in here that show how 
successful Mr. Edwards has been as a result of 
the Epstein cases. His jury verdicts, he 
admitted that he made substantially more in 
income after being sued by Epstein than before. 
He publicizes, teaches, holds seminars based on 
the Epstein case. 
THE COURT: Are any of these yellowed in 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804612

43 
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 
your list? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir, they are. 
THE COURT: Tell me what pages you're 
speaking about? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. They are at the 
beginning, and they are the page 
one second; 
367 and 368, it's on page 22. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MR. SCAROLA: May I raise a procedural 
question, Your Honor? 
THE COURT: Sure. 
MR. SCAROLA: I understand that we have 
until noon today, is that correct? 
THE COURT: Right. 
MR. SCAROLA: And we started at 
approximately 10:15. Mr. Link has been going 
for an hour, that would mean I have 45 minutes. 
THE COURT: All right. I'll give you an 
hour, whatever time he takes. I can adjust my 
lunch hour. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. I just 
thought it would be helpful to set some 
parameters. 
THE COURT: There's never been a time, 
that I am aware, that I have ever given less 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804613

44 
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 
time to one side than I did the other. 
MR. SCAROLA: I certainly understand, and 
that's in conformity with my recollection. 
Thank you. 
MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: 367 and 368. I did -- and 
those are just identified as Edwards --
MR. LINK: These are from -- they're from 
their website, you know, where lawyers are 
touting their success and what they do. 
THE COURT: Right. Edwards Pottinger 
website printout Brad Edwards, Edwards 
Pottinger website printout reaching jury 
verdict. 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. So, when you look at 
Binger, I've explained the relevance to the 
case. When you look at Binger, it's hard to 
imagine there could be a prejudice using 
material that they published on their website. 
So it's the last group that I would like 
to point out to the Court, and then I will wrap 
it up. 
THE COURT: What we haven't covered is 332 
to 337, 315, 292 and 293. 282, 275, 254, 230 
and 231. 205, 210, 211. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804614

4 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 
MR. LINK: Right. 
THE COURT: 177 and 178. 129 and 132. 
103, and several others before that. 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. If you look, Your 
Honor, at page 18 --
THE COURT: I am there. 
MR. LINK: -- 332 through 337, these are 
exhibits. If you turn, for example, to 335 in 
the big book, these are exhibits of security 
guards that Mr. Epstein hired during the 
pendency of the litigation because of a concern 
he had that he was being followed or watched. 
And as it turns out, you'll see at 335, 
that the Rothstein firm -- I'm sorry, this is 
in March of 2010, that the Farmer, Jaffe, 
Edwards firm hired investigators to go to his 
house and they were able to identify Richard 
Fandrey and Michael Fisten. 
Michael Fisten was an investigator at the 
Rothstein firm that went with Mr. Edwards to 
the Farmer Jaffe firm. It says Mr. Fandrey's 
related to the Gambino family, former bodyguard 
of Scott Rothstein. 
There are multiple incident reports and 
complaints to the Palm Beach police about the 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804615

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 
investigative tactics that were going on. And 
one of, obviously, the issues in the case is 
going to be about how Mr. Edwards was 
prosecuting the case and what he was doing. 
Again, this isn't going to be anything 
that could be prejudicial to Mr. Edwards 
because they're the ones who used their 
investigators to do the work. 
In summary, Your Honor, and I know I 
haven't covered every exhibit, because it would 
take too long. And I don't want to use the 
entire time. But I do want to share this with 
the Court, so that you're aware as you consider 
this issue. 
Beginning in February, in February of 
2018, as we were discovering this information 
and these documents, we began a rolling 
production. We did not wait. So one of the 
things in Binger that's important is 
gamesmanship. There was no gamesmanship. We 
weren't gathering documents and waiting until 
the week before trial to say, Here are the 
exhibits, and holding them back. 
You will see that we made a rolling 
production on February 2nd. February 2nd we 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804616

I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
produced 360 items with the production. 
February 16th, Your Honor, we made a 
second rolling production, and we produced ten 
items with that production. 
On March 2nd, we made another rolling 
production. 
So we were producing information and 
documents to Mr. Edwards' lawyers during the 
process and during the time that we were 
finding them. We did not sit on them, we did 
not hold them back, we did not engage in 
gamesmanship. We did not take exhibits and 
documents we intended to use and had it in our 
files, sit back and wait. 
This Court knows that's not the way 
Ms. Rockenbach and I practice, it's not the way 
we did it here. And we made sure that we 
produced, on a rolling basis, the documents, so 
as not to have them hit their desk two days 
before trial. 
I believe, Your Honor, that we are in 
compliance with the Court's order pursuant to 
the pretrial stipulation that allowed both 
counsel, and both counsel took advantage of it, 
to amend their exhibit list. Mr. Scarola did 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804617

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 
it twice, we did it, as well. 
Secondly, if the -- this Court finds that 
we were not in compliance with the July 2017 
order, then all of these exhibits should be 
permitted to be added to the exhibit list 
because there can be no Binger prejudice. And 
if there's any Binger prejudice and they need 
additional time, there's -- they've had these 
exhibits and this motion since May of 2018 and 
we believe Your Honor should let the exhibits 
in. 
Thank you. 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
Ms. Court Reporter, do you have the time 
we started the hearing? 
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, Judge. 10:25. 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
So that's right about at an hour when we 
started the hearing. I had some introductory 
comments that I made, so you can go ahead and 
proceed, Mr. Scarola, and let's see how we do. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, Your 
Honor. 
THE COURT: All right. And, again, just 
so that the record's clear, today we're only 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804618

49 
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 
dealing with the issue vel non of the late 
introduction of the exhibits as alleged by 
Edwards' counsel. We're not dealing with 
anything having to do with the admissibility 
whatsoever. I want to make that clear today. 
Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, Your 
Honor. 
Your Honor, the first argument made by 
opposing counsel was that we have somehow 
stipulated to an unlimited, unrestrained 
amendment to exhibit lists as a consequence of 
the pretrial stipulation that was ordered in 
this case. That pretrial stipulation says that 
the parties reserve their right to amend. 
The only right to amend is the right that 
is defined by Your Honor's pretrial order. And 
that right is that a party desiring to use an 
exhibit or a witness discovered after counsel 
have conferred pursuant to paragraph D shall 
immediately furnish the Court and other counsel 
with a description of the exhibit or the 
witness's name and address, and the expected 
subject matter of the witness's testimony 
together with the reason for the late discovery 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804619

50 
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 exhibit or witness list. 
Use of the exhibit or witness may be 
allowed by the Court for good cause shown or to 
prevent manifest injustice. 
We did not hear one word about when these 
exhibits were discovered, when they were 
discoverable, or why they were not listed 
sooner. 
And while opposing counsel repeatedly 
refers to what he and his law firm did, he has, 
in this hearing, as in other hearings, 
attempted to separate himself out from the 
conduct of prior counsel in this litigation, 
which has gone on now for close to a decade. 
While Mr. Link says "we" started looking 
at the background with respect to Mr. Edwards' 
clients after the Court made a specific ruling 
that Brad Edwards was going to be allowed to 
talk about these clients, and I have two things 
to say about this, the documents that Mr. Link 
is attempting to add are documents that were 
developed in the course of the discovery by 
Mr. Epstein while those individuals' claims 
were pending against Mr. Epstein. 
Before the malicious prosecution case was 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804620

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 
ever filed, this billionaire conducted an 
extraordinary investigation into the 
backgrounds of these young women/children to 
try to uncover any and every dirt that he 
possibly could in order to attack their 
credibility, in order to attack the damages 
that they alleged -- they were alleged to have 
sustained, and in order to attack the claims 
that were being made against him in any way 
possible. 
THE COURT: Well, let me tell you what my 
concern is, and I'll let Mr. Link speak to this 
later as one of the issues that has apparently 
come up with this. Is while relevance 
obviously is something to deal with when the 
exhibit is being proffered in or outside the 
presence of the jury, when it comes to these or 
some of these exhibits, especially as they deal 
with these young women, and when I use that 
term, it's not to be confused with their age, 
it's only as a matter of trying to put a label 
on them now. And so for that reason, it's more 
of a convenience issue than it is a 
description. 
But, when we're talking about things that 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804621

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 
transpired years later, and what I mean by that 
is Mr. Rothstein -- strike that. 
Mr. Epstein's claim is brought in 2009, 
and the, there are arrests, whatever there may 
have been, photographs that were taken years 
after that. My initial concern is what does 
this have to do with Mr. Epstein's bringing of 
the case in 2009? And what does that have to 
do with then his voluntary dismissal of his 
claim shortly thereafter, and Mr. Edwards' 
claim that we're trying here pertaining to 
malicious prosecution. That's where I'm a bit 
confused. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, there are --
there are a lot of arguments that can be made 
about the relevance and materiality of a lot of 
these documents. But as Your Honor indicated 
at the beginning of this hearing, we're not 
there yet. We're not talking about whether 
they are relevant and material, whether they 
are hearsay, whether they're secondhand 
knowledge, whether you can attempt to impeach a 
witness with anything other than the questions, 
have you ever been convicted of a crime? If 
so, how many times? There are a lot of 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804622

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 
these --
THE COURT: A felony or a crime. 
MR. SCAROLA: Involving moral turpitude. 
THE COURT: Right. That involves moral 
turpitude. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. So there are a 
lot of substantive objections that we would 
have to a great deal of this material if it 
were properly listed and could even be 
considered as a potential exhibit. But right 
now we're talking about whether we even get 
into those things. 
And, one of the reasons why these exhibits 
should not be considered is because getting 
into those things alone with regard to the 
volume of exhibits that are attempted to be 
listed will inevitably preclude us from going 
to trial on December 4, no doubt about that at 
all. 
There are motions in limine that would 
need to be filed, there are witnesses that 
would need to be deposed, there are all sorts 
of objections that are substantive that would 
need to be dealt with in advance of trial. 
There are authenticity questions. There are a 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804623

54 
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 
lot of issues. 
But right now I'm attempting to do what I 
think the Court has asked us to do, and that is 
to focus on whether we ever reach those issues. 
So, that's why I deal first with the argument 
that we've stipulated that all of these are 
properly listed. That's absolutely not 
correct. 
And the second argument that is made is 
that if there was any compliance with the 
Court's order, then under Binger you must admit 
these documents because there is no prejudice. 
I handed Your Honor an analysis of Binger, 
and it is a case which I know Your Honor is 
very familiar with, you have commented on it 
not only in this case, but in others on many 
occasions. And while Binger is attempted to be 
categorized as a case that held that in the 
absence of prejudice, late-disclosed witnesses 
and exhibits must be admitted, that is not the 
holding in Binger. That is absolutely not what 
Binger teaches. 
Binger teaches that prejudice is one of 
multiple considerations. And I'll get back to 
talking about that. But before I do, I want to 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804624

5 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 
talk briefly about the three categories of 
documents which, as acknowledged by Mr. Link, 
have already been, in earlier rulings, excluded 
by Your Honor. The first of those categories 
is a vast number of emails that were culled 
from production that consisted of 27,500 and --
THE COURT: 42. 
MR. VITALE: 42. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you both. 
--27,542 documents. 
Now, those documents, to the extent that 
they were discoverable, and it has been 
represented that these are all discoverable 
documents out of those 27,000-plus documents. 
To the extent they were discoverable, those 
documents were turned over in late 2010 or 
early 2011. 
The defense, not Mr. Link, but 
Mr. Epstein's privately retained counsel, all 
of them, and there have been many, they have 
had access to those documents, they've been in 
their possession for seven years. There is no 
way that they can satisfy that portion of the 
Court's order that talks about a party desiring 
to use an exhibit or witness discovered after 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804625

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 
counsel have conferred pursuant to paragraph D, 
which requires the preparation of exhibit 
lists. These aren't documents that were 
discovered after the exhibit lists were 
prepared. These are documents that the defense 
has had for seven years. 
Now, what they have done is out of those 
27,000 documents, they've cherry-picked 
whatever number it is that are included here. 
And what that means --
MR. LINK: Your Honor, I'm sorry for 
interrupting. I just want the record to be 
clear. Those emails did not come from that 
disk. 
Those are not emails, Mr. Scarola, from 
the -- you keep saying the 27,500. Those were 
not from that disk, Your Honor. 
MR. SCAROLA: I'm not saying 
MR. LINK: Just so the Court is clear. 
MR. SCAROLA: I'm not saying they were 
from the disk. These are documents that were 
produced that originated on the disk. The only 
way these emails -- the only way these emails 
are discovered is because a subpoena is issued 
to the bankruptcy trustee, who was the 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804626

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 
custodian of RRA's email servers. 
THE COURT: By the way, where are these 
47 emails listed in your exhibit list? 
MR. LINK: Your Honor, because you sealed 
them, we did not want to reference them in the 
exhibit list. We did a notation that we would 
add those once Your Honor did what you said you 
were going to do, which was the in camera 
inspection. Because you sealed them and 
haven't ruled whether they're privileged or 
not, we did not want to list them. 
THE COURT: I don't remember agreeing to 
an in camera inspection at this point. 
MR. LINK: No, I apologize. We've asked 
for one, the Court hasn't conducted one. But 
you had us seal those exhibits, so I didn't 
want, since you ordered us to seal them, to 
then list them. 
THE COURT: Okay. Well, it's really 
important to be careful with your speech, 
because, again, and I don't mean to continue to 
rehash this, but it's important that at each 
stage of the proceeding anyone who reviews this 
record understands that we're working with 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600 files 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804627

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 
per division, and it's very, very difficult for 
me, where I'm dealing with many, many complex 
cases, including this one, from the standpoint 
of complexity, more so due to age and length 
and number of exhibits and number of issues 
that have had to be addressed, that I can't 
remember everything. 
And I don't think it would be fair for 
anybody to think that anyone could remember 
anything under these circumstances, where I'm 
working alone. So, and when I say "alone," I 
don't have, as I've mentioned many times, nor 
do any of us in this division have a dedicated 
law clerk or staff attorney. 
We have a pool who work very hard, but it 
is insufficient to accomplish what we need to 
do on a daily basis. But irrespective of that, 
I'm here wading through literally thousands of 
pieces of paper on my desk, at the bench at the 
current time, and trying to look through these. 
So, again, I just would remind both sides 
to always be very, very circumspect when making 
representations, because it makes me then have 
to refocus my attention on something that takes 
me off of what I've been thinking about; i.e., 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804628

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 
did I or did I not agree to do an in camera 
inspection of emails that I have no 
recollection of agreeing to. 
But, again, I'm not being critical in any 
disrespectful way, so just to remind you of the 
burden on this Court, as well as the others 
here in the 15th Judicial Circuit Civil 
division. And, again, there's nothing we can 
do about it, we just have to plow through it 
and do the best we can. 
So, if 47 exhibits aren't listed here, I 
don't think really we should focus on those 
today. I'll be more than happy to do it at 
another time. 
MR. SCAROLA: I wasn't intending to focus 
on those, Your Honor, and I'm sorry if my 
language is imprecise, but what I am trying to 
point out is that these emails are part of the 
emails that originated on the Rothstein, 
Rosenfeldt, Adler servers. They were, that 
electronic data, was transferred to compact 
disks. The compact disks were used to print 
out emails, including those that Mr. Link is 
now listing and attempting to use. 
When those emails were printed out in hard 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804629

60 
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 
copy, they were delivered to -- they were 
delivered to Brad Edwards to prepare a 
privilege log. 
Some of the documents were handed over at 
that point. They were divided into three 
categories, actually: Irrelevant documents, 
documents produced for attorneys' eyes only, 
and then privileged documents that were not 
produced. 
But documents were delivered to 
Mr. Epstein's counsel, Fowler White, during 
that period of time. And --
THE COURT: You're talking about 
irrespective of what was on the disk? 
MR. SCAROLA: Well, when you say 
"irrespective"... 
THE COURT: Irrespective, meaning they 
were separately sent without consideration of 
what may or may not have been on that 
particular disk. 
MR. SCAROLA: Well, they originated on the 
disk. That's where all the emails were. 
THE COURT: I understand what you're 
saying. But what I think I -- what I think I'm 
trying to say is that the production by 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804630