EFTA00792811

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 
UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT DISCLAIMER IN THE MATTER OF 
EPSTEIN 
v. 
EDWARDS 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792811

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 following transcript(s) of proceedings, or any portion 
thereof, in the above-entitled matter, taken on November 
29th, 2017, is being delivered UNEDITED and UNCERTIFIED by 
the official court reporter at the request of Kara 
Rockenbach, Esquire. 
The purchaser agrees not to disclose this uncertified and 
unedited transcript in any form (written or electronic) 
To anyone who has no connection to this case. 
This is an unofficial transcript, which should NOT be 
relied upon for purposes of verbatim citation of 
testimony. 
This transcript has not been checked, proofread 
or corrected. It is a draft transcript, NOT a certified 
transcript. As such, it may contain computer-generated 
mistranslations of stenotype code or electronic 
transmission errors, resulting in inaccurate or 
nonsensical word combinations, or untranslated stenotype 
symbols which cannot be deciphered by non-stenotypists. 
Corrections will be made in the preparation of the 
certified transcript, resulting in differences in content, 
page and line numbers, punctuation and formatting. 
This realtime uncertified and unedited transcript contains 
no appearance page, certificate page, index or 
certification. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792812

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: We are here on Epstein 
versus Rothstein and Edwards. The two 
applicable parties being dealt with -- have 
a seat, please. Thank you. 
-- being Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, 
and the counterclaim brought by Mr. Edwards 
against Epstein relative to a malicious 
prosecution claim that has been brought. We 
will confine our arguments to that 
particular matter. And we will keep in mind 
the following: Direct all of your arguments 
to the bench. Please do not speak to each 
other. Please stay away from any 
pejorative, unnecessary comments as it 
relates, in particular, to the 
counter-defendant. 
I will remind you that the Court order 
that I executed relative to the continuous 
of the trial on 14 November this year, 
ordered that no replies be provided to the 
Court absent court order. You have violated 
my order. The replies are being ignored. I 
do not expect that to be repeated, absent 
sanctions. Is that understood? Both sides? 
Ms. Rockenbach? 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792813

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: Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: If I need them, I will ask 
for them. I have several bankers boxes' 
worth of materials here. I don't need 
anything further unless I request it. 
I am well-advised in the case, as you 
may or may not know. I think I announced 
this earlier, for whatever it's worth, I 
handled the underlying cases in division AB. 
So I have had a long history in dealing with 
the matters that surround the instant 
action. Let's start with the 
counter-defendant's revised omnibus motion 
in limine. 
MR. LINK: May it please the Court. 
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you. 
MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. We 
know that we have provided you with a 
forest, maybe two forests, and we really 
appreciate your spending the time to go 
through it. 
If you think back to the motion that we 
filed to continue -- and we appreciate Your 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792814

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 
Honor giving us time to understand what this 
case is about. The reason we need this time 
and we need your time today is because we 
are not sure what case we're trying. And we 
have to understand what case we're trying, 
Judge, in order to determine what evidence 
should come in. 
So with Your Honor's permission, I 
would like to just show you what I've put up 
here, so --
THE COURT: Do you have a hard copy of 
your PowerPoint? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: If I may have it. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: May I approach, Your 
Honor? I shared this with Mr. Scarola last 
evening. 
THE COURT: Thanks. 
MR. LINK: 
Your Honor, before we get 
to the blowup and the screen, I would like 
to just take a minute and talk to you about 
what we think the evidentiary issues we have 
raised in our motion that have to be 
resolved. 
The first is -- and I know Your Honor 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792815

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 
know -- you have told us this over and 
over -- you know the elements of malicious 
prosecution, and that you know them well, 
and they're well-settled. 
But when you read the papers you will 
see there is a disagreement about what those 
elements are. And so I just want to take a 
moment to go through them and find out --
what we really need to understand before we 
can try this case to a jury is this: what 
facts are in dispute that a jury has to 
decide. That's our struggle. 
So, Your Honor, the malicious 
prosecution, element one, the commencement 
of a proceeding, that is not an issue in 
this case. 
Element two. Was it filed by the 
present defendant -- the counter-defendant. 
Not an issue in this case. 
Item three. The bona fide termination 
in favor of the plaintiff. That is an issue 
in this case. 
That takes me to item two for one 
moment on my board, Your Honor, which is 
burden of proof. The counter-plaintiffs 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792816

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 
suggest in their papers that once they prove 
the underlying claims by Mr. Edwards' three 
plaintiffs that were settled in 2010, that 
they have met enough to go forward and skip 
by the bona fide termination. 
The reason the bona fide termination is 
important is that that is the one area in 
the burden of proof -- the one area that 
shifts to us as --
THE COURT: If I'm not mistaken, are we 
talking about bona fide termination of the 
Epstein action brought by Epstein versus 
Rothstein and Edwards? 
MR. LINK: Yes. 
THE COURT: So why are we dealing with 
the underlying claims of the bona fide 
termination issue? 
MR. LINK: I don't know why we are, 
except that is part of the papers that we 
are dealing with. 
THE COURT: They are part of the 
papers, as I understand it, so as to 
establish a nexus between the reason why 
Mr. Epstein brought this claim in the first 
place against Rothstein and Edwards, and to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792817

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 
try to determine the rationale that 
Mr. Epstein had to bring this case in the 
first place, which is a question that the 
jury is going to have, which is a question 
that the Court has, and what was the reason 
behind bringing this case. 
Was it one of vengeance? Was it one of 
hatred? Was it one of --
MR. LINK: Malicious. 
THE COURT: Malicious. Let me get to 
the point. Was it one of feeling that he 
was taking -- that the part of those whose 
investments were had by Rothstein as a 
result of that massive Ponzi scheme -- as he 
indicates in his deposition -- he felt that 
these people were taken advantage of as a 
result of Rothstein's misdeeds? I don't 
know what the reason was, and I'm sure the 
jury is going to ask what the reasons were. 
But there is going to be some introduction, 
albeit it tempered -- clearly tempered --
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: And Ms. Rockenbach 
I 
believe she was the signatory to the 
motion -- acknowledges that some of that 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792818

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 
information is going to be in. There is no 
way we're going to be able to sanitize the 
case to that extent. 
MR. LINK: We wouldn't ask the Court to 
do that. 
THE COURT: So that's what I'm trying 
to understand. Why are we going there when 
it comes to bona fide termination? 
MR. LINK: The reason is that I want to 
make sure that we are all on the same page 
about whose burden of proof in the case, 
because that will make a difference about 
the evidence that needs to come in. 
THE COURT: I don't think there is any 
issue -- I don't believe Mr. Scarola is 
taking issue that initially the burden of 
proof is with the counter-plaintiff Edwards 
as to the determination or the showing that 
there was a bona fide termination of the 
case in his client's favor -- this case, 
meaning Epstein versus Rothstein and 
Edwards, and specifically Rothstein versus 
Edwards. Is that fair, Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: It's fair, Your Honor, 
that we acknowledge that we have the burden 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792819

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 
of proof with regard to every element. 
It is also our position that the issue 
as to whether the underlying claim was bona 
fiably terminated in favor of Bradley 
Edwards is an issue of law for the Court. 
There are no disputed -- Mr. Edwards is 
present, yes. 
There are no disputed issues of fact 
with regard to what happened, and therefore, 
the Court will need to make the legal 
determination as to whether that constitutes 
a bona fide termination. And we believe 
that that is an issue that has been resolved 
through the appellate process as well. 
THE COURT: Up to the point where 
there's a belief that the issue has been 
resolved through the appellate process as 
well, I agree with Mr. Scarola's position. 
At this point, in my view, ultimately 
it becomes potentially a legal issue. If 
the facts are clear and there's no factual 
dispute, then it becomes purely a legal 
decision as to whether or not there's been 
bona fide termination. 
MR. LINK: We agree 100 percent, Judge. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792820

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 
100 percent. 
THE COURT: I don't want to deviate --
MR. LINK: I know. So I'm going to go 
to the next piece, which is the key, which 
is the absence of probable cause. And the 
absence of probable cause focuses here --
the absence of probable cause -- and this is 
what Your Honor was just talking about --
focuses here. December 7th, 2009. That's 
when Mr. Epstein brought his claim against 
Rothstein, Mr. Rothstein's firm and 
Mr. Edwards. 
THE COURT: Did he bring it against 
Rothstein's firm? I only have Rothstein 
individually --
MR. SCAROLA: Rothstein, individually 
and Bradley Edwards, individually. 
MR. LINK: My apologies. 
THE COURT: That statement is 
retracked. It's Rothstein individually and 
Edwards, individually. Mr. Scarola 
concurred and Mr. Link has now concurred. 
MR. SCAROLA: And L.M., which I think 
is of some significance also. 
THE COURT: Was she brought in 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792821

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 
originally? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 
MR. LINK: She was, Judge. 
Here is our view of what we have to do 
when we look at the evidence we are going to 
show you -- the exhibit list, the testimony 
to come in -- is to focus on what the jury 
is going to have to decide. 
Again, I'm not sure what the facts are 
in dispute, but it's here. The only 
information that makes a difference is what 
Epstein -- what Epstein looked at; what he 
considered; the inferences he drew from that 
information; and whether when you take the 
totality of that information, Your Honor, he 
had a reasonable basis to bring a civil 
proceeding against Mr. Edwards. 
I don't think there is any dispute. I 
have read the Court's transcript where the 
Court has said -- the case against 
Mr. Rothstein, I understand that. I don't 
think anybody is disputing that. The 
question is was there sufficient --
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on a minute. 
Let's not take my comments out of context. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792822

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 
Whether or not there was ever any issues 
that Mr. Epstein had viably against either 
Rothstein, Edwards or L.M. are still, as far 
as the Court is concerned, unanswered. 
MR. LINK: Remember we have a default 
against Mr. Rothstein. 
THE COURT: That's a different issue. 
MR. LINK: I understand your point, 
Judge. 
THE COURT: I don't want my comments to 
be taken out of context. 
MR. LINK: Fair enough. 
THE COURT: A default is different than 
a court indicating some type of 
understanding as to Mr. Epstein's cause of 
action against Rothstein in this particular 
case. Because, as I said, the jury will 
question and the Court continues to question 
why Mr. Epstein brought this case in the 
first place. 
MR. LINK: Fair enough. Thank you for 
the clarification. 
THE COURT: And the reason why that's 
important is because the counter-plaintiff 
has argued that circumstantially -- and 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792823

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 
based upon, in large part, invocation of the 
Fifth Amendment by Mr. Epstein, they are 
going to need to prove that or disprove that 
potentially through the Fifth Amendment 
issues that we are going to be discussing. 
Because while Mr. Epstein may have his 
own motivation, circumstantially it is going 
to be up to the plaintiff to prove that 
motivation was not, in fact, in good faith. 
And I'm using good faith not as a term --
not as a legal term, but more of a term of 
art. 
MR. LINK: I understand that. 
THE COURT: So, it brings us to the 
point that we need to get to. So I am with 
you so far in terms of where you're going. 
And you're leading me through this. I 
appreciate it very much. 
But it does get us now to this really 
critical issue of, well, again, there's this 
huge question that's being asked by -- going 
to be asked by the finder of fact and the 
trier of the law, and that is, how does the 
counter-plaintiff prove its case when 
Mr. Epstein has answered selected questions? 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792824

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 
I was -- I am now paraphrasing 
Mr. Epstein's answers in large part. I 
found out that Rothstein was factoring these 
cases. I found out that these investors 
were being taken advantage of. Taken 
advantage of through the forging of an 
order -- forging of an order that purported 
to have the signature of Judge Marra -- a 
tremendously well-respected jurist in this 
community, now taken senior status. 
I, meaning Mr. Epstein, was not only 
concerned about Rothstein doing what he did, 
but also I had suspicions that Mr. Edwards 
was involved in this process, because there 
were some articles that discussed the query 
could Rothstein have done this alone, and 
implicated at least the cases -- not to my 
knowledge Mr. Edwards -- but the cases that 
Mr. Edwards was serving as lead counsel. 
Some before this particular court in 
division AB back in 2009 and that period of 
time -- perhaps just around that period of 
time. 
So there's going to be a large question 
in the trier-of-facts' mind and remains in 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792825

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 
the Court's mind. How was Mr. Epstein 
damaged by what transpired from the 
standpoint of Rothstein, or what may have 
transpired from his own mind as it relates 
to Mr. Edwards? 
That's going to be a huge question, and 
remains a huge question. What was Epstein 
doing at that time, meaning, why did he file 
this lawsuit? What was his damages? Why 
was he even doing this in the first place? 
That's going to create an issue. 
And the reason I bring it up is solely 
to get into the argument that's going to be 
raised by the counter-plaintiff Edwards. 
And that is how do we prove this where 
Epstein chooses to answer only certain 
questions regarding his motivation, i.e., 
malice, and probable cause? 
But it doesn't answer questions germane 
to his mindset that, okay, there were these 
factored cases by Rothstein. He's paying a 
severe price for what he did. 
The millionaire investors who got 
involved in this Ponzi scheme have clearly 
been damaged and restitution has been paid, 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792826

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 
to my understanding, to the extent that 
those assets of Rothstein's and those who 
were otherwise implicated paid what they 
paid. 
But how is Mr. Epstein damaged, and 
what was his motivation -- other than 
altruism, other than the questions that were 
asked by Mr. Scarola, which he didn't 
answer -- that could have been referencing a 
myriad of things: vengeance, anger, 
hostility. But they have that ability -- in 
my respectful view, in reading these 
materials -- to be able to raise those 
issues and perhaps through the Fifth 
Amendment Avenue. 
MR. LINK: Maybe, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: We need to concentrate on 
that. And we need to not only look at --
what I'm trying to say is, through 
Ms. Rockenbach's excellent written 
presentation --
MR. LINK: I helped a little bit, 
Judge. 
THE COURT: Actually, Mr. Link signed 
it. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792827

18 
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: There you. I took credit 
for it all, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: My apologies. 
MR. LINK: It was a little bit of me. 
THE COURT: We get in trouble when we 
assume. Irrespective of that, Mr. Link 
signed it. So you can tell I'm more 
concentrated on the body of work than who 
necessarily executed it. 
But what I am trying to say is, what I 
believe respectfully is being done here is 
it's a one-sided argument. 
Now, I agree that you have to zealously 
represent your client and take his side, and 
I have no problem with that. But what I'm 
also suggesting is, at the same time, there 
has to be some consideration and some 
concession that they have a viable -- I 
won't say viable claim -- but they have 
viable arguments to support what they are 
trying to accomplish. And the means to do 
that is largely hamstrung by Mr. Epstein's 
refusal to answer questions. 
Go ahead. 
MR. LINK: Thank you, sir. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792828

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 
Those are exactly the issues we have. 
And there's one thing, Your Honor, I think 
that I would ask you to consider. This is 
very important. And I will tell you that if 
you walk through these elements, this 
element right here -- this is the key -- the 
absence of probable cause does not take into 
consideration anybody's motive, their anger, 
their malice, their state of mind or 
anything else other than -- other than --
and we will get to malicious -- you are 
dead-on -- but probable cause is an 
objective standard. If the facts are not in 
dispute, it's an objective standard to be 
determined by this Court. That's what the 
Florida Supreme Court has told us. 
So, what's important -- what's 
important is the counter-plaintiff doesn't 
challenge that this information was 
available. They don't challenge that the 
information, when read, it says Rothstein 
was involved in a Ponzi scheme. It says 
Mr. Epstein's three cases were being used to 
lure investors and information about them 
was fabricated. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792829

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 
So there's not a dispute about that. 
The question is this. The question is, did 
Mr. Epstein have some reason to doubt or not 
believe the information he was reading. 
Because even though probable cause, Your 
Honor, is an objective standard, if I know 
what I'm reading is false, then I haven't 
really in good faith relied on it. 
But it doesn't matter. The case law 
says you cannot establish probable cause or 
the lack of it by the most actual malice 
known to man. 
I can hate this gentleman. I can want 
to bury this gentleman. I can want to run 
him out of business. But if I have 
objective probable cause --
THE COURT: And you are saying, as a 
matter of law, you are suggesting to me that 
newspaper articles -- which are the bulk of 
the reliance that Mr. Epstein is 
suggesting -- is sufficient to establish 
probable cause? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir, I am. 
THE COURT: We are really not there yet 
because --
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792830