EFTA00801596

1 3 THE COURT: Good morning. Welcome UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT DISCLAIMER IN THE MATTER OF back. All right as I understand it, you EPSTEIN want to start with the issue of the motion v. t to amend the answer and affirmative EDWARDS de . Is that accurate? MR. SCAROLA: That is, sir. Yes. THE COURT: I will be glad to do that. I have reviewed the materials from both 3 sides. Thank you for that. 10 MR. LINK: Whenever you are ready, 11 Judge. 12 THE COURT: Whenever you are ready, go 11 ahead, sir. 14 MR. LINK: Good morning, Your Honor. IS Scott Link on behalf of the plaintiff. It 16 is our motion for leave to amend the 17 affirmative defenses. You have to put that IS in context, Your Honer. IS That is, why do we need affirmative 20 defenses that sound in defamation, and they 21 do. The reason they do is because the 22 counter-plaintiff in this case has made it 21 very clear that they are trying the 26 allegations in the statements in the 2$ complaint. 2 4 I The following transcriptisl of proceedings, or any portion 1 At the last hearing, Hr. Scarola handed 2 thereof, in the above-entitled matter, taken on Decerber 2 this out and showed us vary clearly what 3 Sth, 2017, is being delivered MEDI= and UNCERTIFIED by s their plan is. And this is their plan. 4 the official court reporter et the request of Kere 4 They believe that we're trying the factual S Rockenbach, Esquire. 5 allegations of the complaint to aaa whether 6 The purchaser agrees not to disclose this uncertified and e they wore true or false. 7 unedited transcript In any form Written or electronic) Aa this Court knows, in the recent a To anyone who has no connection to this case. e Supreme Court case dealing with this case, 9 This is an unofficial transcript, which should NOT be the Supreme Court made it very clear that 10 relied upon for purposes of verbatim citation of :0 there is a narrow exception to the 11 teatissny. 21 litigation privilege. That exception is for 12 This transcript has not been checked, preofroad 22 malicious prosecution. But the Supreme 13 or corrected. It is a draft transcript, HOT a certified 29 Court told us in that opinion Your-Honor -- 14 transcript. As such, it imy contain tweeter-generated 24 I will share it with the Court -- the Is nastranslations of atenecype tole or electronic 35 Supreme Court told us in that opinion, Your 16 transmission errors, resulting in inaccurate or 16 Honor -- gave ua a roadmap. 13 nonsensical word combinations, or untranslated stenotype 17 The Supremo Court told us. Is siribola which cannot to deciphered by non-stenotypists. 19 THE COURT: That Debt'neat, Is Corrections will be nade in the preparation of the 19 D-E-B-R-1-W-C-A-T versus Fischer -- 20 certified transcript, resulting in differences in content, 20 MR. LINK: That's correct, Your Honor. 21 page and line motor*, punctuation and formatting. 21 THE COURT: -- from the Florida Supremo 22 This realtire uncertified and unedited transcript contains 22 Court, So.34 cite that the parties aro well 22 no appearance page, certificate page, index or 23 familiar with. 24 certification. 24 MR. LINK: If you are look at this 25 25 case, you will see that the Supreme Court Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801596 5 7 made it vary clear and gave us a roadmap. According to the Supreme Court, our 2 The Supreme Court said really simply -- and 2 complaint is protected. ft cannot commit 3 it makes sense -- that if the litigation defamation. No cannot commit any action 4 privilege applied to the elements of a that's based on wrongful words. The only 5 malicious prosecution action, chore would thing that's available is a claim for 6 never be a malicious prosecution action. malicious prosecution focused on the Plus the Supreme Court reaffirmed that initiation of the milt. every statement made in the proceeding On the last page of this opinion from 9 : the allegations of the complaint. the Supreme Court, the court tells us this: 10 the statements of witnesses, the statements 10 The filing of a lawsuit and the joining of a 11 of lawyers, and the statements of the judges 11 defendant Is the commencement of a judicial 12 are absolutely protected. That's why the 12 proceeding. 13 court lays out the elements. And the 13 It then says, really importantly, an 14 elements the court lays out talk about only 14 action roc malicious prosecution which is 35 the actual initiation of the lawsuit. is based as a matter of law on causing the 14 So if you turn, Your Honor, to page two 26 commencement of an original judicial of three, the court sots forth the elements. 27 proceeding -- that's what we need focus on. 18 We will talk about those elements. The 28 So If we are trying the statements and 29 Supreme Court really give us clarity. 29 the allegations of the complaint, if that's 20 At the bottom of the page two, it talks 10 what we are doing, then we have to have II about an original criminal or civil judicial affirmative dotlllll that protect us from a 21 proceeding -- an original proceeding. That 21 claim based on allegations in the complaint. 22 proceeding, according to the Supremo Court, 29 Tho last thing I want to show the 24 when you read the Fourth OCA division that's 24 Court, on Friday after our hearing, I took 25 cited, is the filling, it's the 15 the deposition of Mr. Edwards' export. 6 8 1 commencement, it's the action. Hay I approach. During the deposition 2 If you think about where this law came 2 of Dr. Jansen -- if you turn to page throe, from, it comes from the criminal system. If four and five, Your Honor, you will see what you think about the criminal system, simply their export wants to do. issuing a warrant, starting an The assignment was the level of 6 investigation, filing a criminal complain: dissemination of defaming statements -- 7 in and of itself can cause injury to your defaming statements. That's on page three. reputation. Page four. I refer to ties statement 9 So the Supreme Court tells us the act associating Hr. Edwards with the illegal 20 that is not protected by the litigation 10 activities of Hr. Rothstein's, the results 21 privilege is the initiation of a lawsuit. 21 of Hr. Rothstein's lawsuits as the defaming 21 If you look at the probable cause statements. 29 element, it says there was an absence of 29 So what Choy plan to do is put on an 24 probable cause for the original proceeding. 24 export to demonstrate that the allegations 36 It doesn't say claim. It doesn't 35 of the complaint were defaming and caused 16 allegation. It doesn't say statement. 16 damages, the defamation action. 17 So Mr. Scarola tolls us three times 17 There's nothing in the el/manta of 10 during this hearing on the 29th that what he 18 malicious prosecution that make it relevant 19 plans to do -- what he plans to do -- 19 for an expert to get on the stand and talk 20 reading from this transcript at page 82 -- 20 about defaming statements in the complaint. 21 the first thing Your Honor needs to 21 In fact, to do so violates the roadmap 22 determine is the issue we have boon focusing 22 that the Supreme Court just gave us. Thera 23 on. What are the factual allegations that 23 is no better authority than Dobrincat on how 24 we claim were maliciously prosecuted, and 24 this case should go forward. But If they're 25 then he goes to our complaint. 25 going to be allowed to put an expert on to Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801597 9 11 talk about defaning statements, if they are that sane umbrella. 2 going to bo allowed to put the allegations 2 MR. LINK: It does, Your Honor. of the complaint and test their truth or 3 Everything that we've asked the Court to 4 falsity, which aro protected by litigation allow us to amend is designed to protect our privilege, we then need to have affirmative record, frankly, that we believe that defenses that sounds like defamation. 5 everything in our pleading -- lot me glue Last point I want to point out in you an example. DobrIncat, Your Honor is this. It's in the 8 The Court dismisses Mr. Edward's count 9 analysis, and it's the second sentence of 9 for abuse of process based on litigation 10 the analysis. To law has long recognised 10 privilege. At the and of the suit when we 11 that judges, counsel, parties and witnesses 11 win, if we sued Mr. Scarola for malicious 12 should be absolutely exempted from liability 12 prosecution in going forward with this case, 13 to an action -- this is the key -- it 13 aro the statements he's node in this 14 doesn't say to defamation -- to an action. 14 proceedings -- for example, Mr. Epstein is a 15 To be specific, to any action for defamatory IS serial child molester -- aro they protected 16 words published in the course of the io because they're part of this proceeding? Or 17 judicial proceeding. 17 does he waive the privilege somehow because 16 So if we aro exempted from liability 16 we bring a malicious prosecution action? 19 for the words published in the lawsuit, then 19 This court tolls us very clearly we 20 we don't need those affirmative defenses, 20 could not sue Mr. Scarola for his because they will then have to focus on 21 statements. It is no purpose in the 22 probable cause for the judicial proceeding. 22 malicious prosecution action. 23 But If they aro going to by allowed to bring 23 But that's what this door is opening. 24 in allegations of the conplaint, truth or 24 That's what they want to do. And we suggest 25 falsity, then we need these affirmative 25 to Your Honor, we don't want to come back a 10 12 defenses. second time. No would like to try this ease 2 Otherwise, if you look at our answer in 2 once. No would like to focus on the 3 affirmative defenses, Your Honor, we don't 3 elements of malicious prosecution and not have any. Tho reason we don't have any is 4 try a defaming words case in front of the 5 we didn't raise advice of counsel. There's 5 jury. not a statute of limitation defense. No Thank you, Your Honor. have no affirmative defenses because we aro THE COURT: Okay thank you, Mr. Link. defending a malicious prosecution action. Mho is going to arguing on behalf of 9 But we ask this Court, if this Court is 9 Mr. Edwards? Mr. Burlington? 20 going to allow them to try the truth or 10 MR. BURLINGTON: May it please the falsity of the statements in the complaint, 11 Court. I am Phillip Burlington representing 12 that we bo allowed to anon our pleading. 12 Brad Edwards. 13 THE COURT: You aro not seeking to 13 I have not heard anything today that 24 amend to affirnatively defend on advice of 14 justifies their claim that the rights to 25 counsel? 15 petition the government provides them an 16 MR. LINK: We aro not, sir. They are 14 affirmative Oceans* as they allege in their 17 all defamation affirmative defenses. 17 fifth affirmative defense. That has nothing le THE COURT: Well, there's also the 18 to do with defamation. No have explained 19 constitutional affirmative defenses that you 19 why it is not a defense to a malicious 20 aro seeking to interpose dealing with the 20 prosecution case. Because as the US Supreme 21 petition to file against the government or 21 Court has stated very clearly, baseless 22 something along those lines. 22 litigation is not protected by the privilege 23 MR. LINK: Those aro all defamation. 23 to engage in petitioning of the government 21 They aro all protection of speech. 24 under the First Amendment. 25 THE COURT: I presume that falls under 25 I would note that oven considering the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801598 13 15 presentation here, there is not a single the prejudice to our client. But I will got 2 case from any jurisdiction cited by them back to the legal insufficiency. 3 that says that any of these defenses aro The argument that the Debrincat case 4 valid in a malicious prosecution case. Not gives a roadmap is simply wrong. Debrincat 5 a single case. is not a roadaap. It is a dead end. It was 6 They have gone so far as to site the the determination that the litigation 7 Noerr/Pennington cases, which are anti-trust privilege OOOs not apply to a malicious cases involving efforts to lobby the prosecution case. 9 legislative and executive branches of And this is very clearly stated in the 10 government, and they have taken that and 10 paragraph preceding its conclusion. This 11 tried to apply it to the malicious 11 court has never hold that the litigation 12 prosecution case. That makes to sense. 12 privilege protects a litigant from the claim 13 Now, as to the other defenses, they 13 of malicious prosecution. And other 14 have also passed over two very critical 14 district courts have recognized that the 25 considerations which wore not addressed in 15 litigation privilege does not act as a bar 26 Choir motion -- and have not boon addressed 26 to a malicious prosecution claim. 27 hero, and I hope will not be addressed for 27 If the Florida Supremo Court was the first tine in the rebuttal, since wo 28 holding that it does not bar proof of the 29 addressed it very squarely in our 29 first element of malicious prosecution, they 20 response -- and that is, there aro throe 10 would have said that and said it remains in II grounds to deny a motion to amend. Ono is L force for the other elements. Clearly they 22 whore the party has abused privilege. The 22 would not have boon as categorical as they 22 second is whore the amendment would 29 were. 14 prejudice the opposing party, and than the 24 What they have done is try to parse out 25 third is whether the affirmative defenses 25 language, again trying to make the roadmap 14 16 would be futile because they are legally when it's clear this was intended to be a 2 insufficient. 2 dead and for that privilege. Now, in this case they've raised five And they talk about it's only the 4 affirmative defenses eight years into the initiation of the claim that subjects them 5 litigation and mere weeks before of this 5 to liability. But even in Debrincat when it 6 special setting that this Court had for this talks about the first element, it says an 7 month. original criminal or civil judicial 8 No pointed out in our response. There proceeding against the present plaintiff was 9 was no explanation why it took them eight commenced or continued. In this case, 20 years to dream up those affirmative :0 obviously, it was continued. 11 defenses. That Is an abuse of the They include the other elements, which 12 privilege, waiting until the ova of trial, 12 include that there was an absence of 19 after discovery is almost completely IS probable cause for the original proceeding. 24 concluded to raise multiple affirmative 14 That moans we can prove that the factual 25 defenses, many of which raise factual issues 15 allegations wore false, that the legal 16 that would require further discovery, 16 claims wore invalid, as a matter of law, and 17 possibly now exports, and maybe oven counter 17 nothing In Debrincat precludes that. 10 pleading. Those reasons in themselves aro 10 It was a simple, vary short decision 19 sufficient to justify denial of this motion. 19 for the Florida Supremo Court. And it 20 But, I have spend more time on the 20 simply said the privilege dons not apply to 21 futility, because I certainly understand 21 malicious prosecution claims. 22 that Your honor has always expressed concern 22 But oven putting aside Dobrincat, we 23 that people aro allowed to amend. And 23 have never had a defamation claim. We have 24 again, wo don't think that they should based 24 never alleged it. And they have this string 25 on the abuse of the privilege and based on 25 alto of cases that talks about how, well -- Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801599 17 19 it's called the single publication rule. If it. I nean, the fact that there aro similar 2 your cause of action is based on a 2 elements of danage does not convert defamatory publication, you can't avoid 3 malicious prosecution to a dofanation count. 4 defenses to defamation or the statute of And they have cited no case for that • limitations by pleading things like 5 proposition. • intentional inflection of emotional distress 6 But oven if we go a little deeper into 7 or tortious interference with business • those defamation claims to the defamation • relationships, so forth and so on. • defenses, they aro clearly invalid as a 9 It has nothing to do -- not a single 9 matter of law. 10 one of those cases had to do with malicious 10 For example, the fifth ono -- excuse 11 prosecution. 7ho only one that comes within 11 I have already addressed the fifth ono. 12 shouting distance is Fridovich. But in that 12 Tho sixth ono claims that Hr. Edwards 13 case, the Fourth District rejected the 13 is a public figure. Now, as noted 14 malicious prosecution case, because that 14 previously, this would raise a whole new 15 case arose out of family allegations that a 15 factual mat of issues plus perhaps the need le family member murdered somebody, and they le for experts. 17 wore essentially fighting over the *state. I? But the Gertz case makes It crystal 16 They created this conspiracy to bring 16 clear that a private attorney representing a 19 claims to the prosecutor to prosecute that 10 client, despite their involvement in a 10 family member for murder. That family 10 high-profile case, including their 11 member was ultimately convicted of 11 involvenent In a proceeding unrelated to 12 manslaughter. 12 their civil proceeding is not a public 13 So the Fourth District said that's not 13 figure, that you cannot convert -- they aro 14 a bona fide termination in your favor, so 14 very specific. You cannot convert a private IS they eliminate the malicious prosecution. 25 attorney representing a client into an 18 20 Then they wont with detonation counts and officer of the court to bootstrap yourself 2 related counts. It was a certified question 2 into saying it's a public official. 3 in Fridovich -- talks about defamation. And they also said in that case that we But they have cited no case from any aro not going to hold that someone who 5 jurisdiction that says that you can convert simply engages in their professional 6 a malicious prosecution case into a activities or has involvement in the defamation case, and then raise defenses community is converted to a public figure. that aro unique to detonation cases. And what they have attached to their 9 And this reliance on the deposition 9 motion to amend, which they claim Brad 10 taken recently is nothing but -- that was &Morels made hinsolf into a public figure is 11 a -- that was an expert on damages, and nothing more than website statements on the 12 damages to reputation as a result of false law rim whore Brad Edwards worked that 15 statements, which is an inherent part of a 15 talked about sone of his cases. And that's 14 malicious prosecution case. An they have 14 nothing more than his professional 25 cited no case to the contrary. IS responsibility and professional relationship 16 THE COURT: You have cases that cite 16 for purposes of getting clients. 17 affirmatively to that proposition? 17 THE COURT: Resume. le MR. BURLINGTON: Thera is a case called le MR. BURLINGTON: Excuse me? 19 Mancusi out of the Florida Suprono Court 19 THE COURT: Resume. 20 that define the elements and talked about it 20 MR. BURLINGTON: Sure. 21 is designed -- in fact, Debrincat says that 21 And there's nothing even -- only one of 22 malicious prosecution is balanced between 22 them mentions Epstein. 23 allowing people to bring suits and 23 So they have cited no case from any 24 protecting the reputation of the individual. 24 Jurisdiction that says that a defamation 25 So that's ono -- that's the nature of 25 count can result in either a higher burden Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801600 21 23 of proof or additional affirmative defenses So that case, the Nodar case, has 2 based on the nature of the individual who nothing to do with either the context of 3 was sued in the baseless litigation. this case or the cause of action that we had 4 Then their seven affirmative defense, brought. 5 just assorts generally just as a matter of And they've cited, as I've said, no 6 public concern, and thereof we have a higher malicious prosecution cases to support the 7 burden of proof. idea that any of these defenses can be Again, this is rather late in the gano valid. 9 to start changing, not only the factual 9 Now, as to the -- I believe it's the 10 issues, but the burdens of proof. But they 10 eighth and ninth affirmative defenses, they 11 also cite no case from any jurisdiction that 11 aro not affirmative defenses at all. 12 says a malicious prosecution case is altered 12 Affirmative defense, as the Florida 13 on the basis of whether there was a matter 13 Supremo Court has stated, is whore a 14 of public concern involved. 14 defendant essentially has to admit the 25 And hero, inverting that notoriety of 36 allegations of the pleading. But say -- 26 Mr. Epstein's criminal conduct into a matter 26 oven assuming that -- I have this defense or public concern is somewhat of a stretch. 27 you are limited in those matters in proving 16 But also, in the Gertz case there was 26 your case or in your damages. 29 notoriety in that criminal case. And Gertz 29 Their eighth affirmative defense simply 20 made It very clear that the private attorney 20 says this is nothing but a defamation suit. 2I representing a client in proceedings and in 21 That's not an affirmative defense. That is 22 related proceedings, which had a lot of 22 a legal proposition which they rely on to IS publicity, did not convert him to either a IS provide the predicate for the sixth and 24 public official or a public figure, and 24 seventh affirmative defenses, but it is 15 whether or not it was a matter of public 26 nothing but a statement of a legal 22 24 1 concern was not relevant. proposition. It is not a defense. 2 The case that they seemingly rely on is 2 The last affirmative defense claims the Nodar case, which is a Florida case that there aro known procedures that this 4 where the parent wont to the board of the court could put in place that could protect school board to speak out against a teacher 5 Epstoin's duo process rights in the context 6 that he believed was no properly preparing of the punitive damage claims. That's not the students, not properly teaching and was an affirmative defense. That's a 8 harassing his son. constitutional challenge in the proceedings 9 That was a public forum. It was an of this court. While I'm not saying they 20 executive branch, not a judicial branch. 10 can't raise constitutional challenges, it is 11 And all that the Florida Supremo Court hold 21 not a affirmative defense. 22 was in that context -- because it was a 22 I would add, they haven't specified a 23 matter of public concern in the appropriate 25 single thing that has happened thus far in 24 public forum -- there was a qualified 14 the context of punitive damages that has 36 privilege, and the malice would not be 36 deprived Mr. Epstein of any duo process 16 presumed from the defamatory statements. 16 rights. 17 Now, again, that was a defamation suit. 17 And I gave a brief summary in our 10 It was nothing about malicious prosecution. 10 response to all the protections that have 19 But as Justice Scalia noted in his 19 been established in the case law, in the 20 concurring opinion in the Salina case, 20 statutes for protecting duo process rights. 21 malicious prosecution has the qualify 21 And until and unless they coma to you 22 privilege built into lt, because wo have to 22 with a colorable argument that those 23 prove, not only a lack of probable cause, 23 procedures aro inadequate, there's nothing 24 but wo have to prove malice, and wo do not 24 for you to do in response that g 25 get a presumption of malice. 25 assertion that Kr. Epstein could never have Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801601 25 27 1 his duo process rights protected in the 2 for me, if you will, the issue of futility. 2 context of the punitive damage award. But 2 Because usually because of Florida's policy 3 what is clear is it's not an affirmative 3 on liberality of amendments even at trial -- 4 defense at all. 4 cases after trial that allows for amending 5 So, trying to parse out Debrincat to the pleadings -- the amendment is typically 4 say that the litigation privilege only allowed, and then the affirmative defenses 7 applies to ono element of the malicious aro attacked, traditionally by a motion to 0 prosecution claim, I submit is facially strike. 9 wrong in light of the complaint. And if Home your arguments on behalf of your 10 they believe that Debrincat, which concludes 10 client aro that these amendments are 11 by saying unequivocally that the litigation 11 essentially futile in the sense that I 12 privilege does not apply to malicious 12 analogize it with a cause of action brought 19 prosecution camas, they had an obligation 13 by a plaintiff in a given case where the 14 because they were a tag-along case. And the 14 plaintiff is alleging sone typo of -- 15 Florida Supreme Court, after issuing is attempting to allege soma typo of cause of le Debrincat, issued an order in our case 26 action that makes no legal sense, or it is 17 saying that Epstein should show cause why 27 barred by the existing precedent so as to 16 Dobrincat does not control. And In 20 make any amendments futile. 29 response, Epstein conceded that it did 29 I would suspect that that same analogy 20 control. There is no to parse out anything 20 could apply here. Albeit, this is the first 22 in Debrincat which would create entirely new 22 effort, at least as to these affirmative 22 law in Florida about parsing out elements of 22 defenses, that have been made. 29 malicious prosecution for either purposes of 29 But aro you suggesting that under no 24 forcing the plaintiff into a position of 24 reading of law and the facts that apply hero 25 having a defamation claim or of taking out 25 that it would be either amendable or that 26 28 1 specific elements of a malicious prosecution 1 any potential amendment based on these facts 2 claim and saying, oh we have defamation 2 and the law that have constituted those 3 defenses to these. s proposed affirmative defense would be 4 The falsity of the statements in the 4 futile? 6 ccmplaint aro entirely different fret a 5 HR. BURLINGTON: You aro correct that 6 publication, because it is the act of 4 normally when affirmative defenses aro 7 triggering the judicial mechanism forcing my initially asserted in a timely fashion that 0 client to defend, litigate, expend funds. e the mans of challenging their legal 9 And the falsity of those statements goes to , sufficiency is a motion to strike. 20 lack of probable cause, it goes to malice, :0 When a no motion to amend is 21 and it is an element that we can prove 21 presented -- especially this late fn the 22 caused harm, and we should get compensatory 22 game -- it would be a waste of judicial 29 damages. 29 resources for you to allow the amendment 24 Again, they cited no case. They relied 14 knowing that as a matter of law those 15 solely on Debrincat, and it is an extremely is defenses are invalid. 16 thin read upon which to entirely change the 16 And there are cases -- I'm not sure 17 law of malicious prosecution. And I believe 17 they're the ones cited in our response -- 10 that Your Honor should deny the motion based 10 but I have cited case on futility where if 19 on being untimely with no explanation. 19 they're legally invalid, they're necessarily 20 None of these cases are now. Debrincat 20 futile. 21 is the only one that's within the last few 21 And to go through the motion of 22 years. But they had time to raise that. 22 allowing them to amend, requiring us to Soya 23 All the others are established law. It just 23 to strike, allowing them to respond when the 24 doesn't apply here. 24 legal sufficiency is addressed in those 25 THE COURT: Let me ask you to explain 25 memos. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801602 29 31 i They cited case law in their i There was one aspect of Mr. Link's 2 affirmative defenses themselves trying to 2 argument that I found extremely confusing. 3 )ustify them. So the futility Ss 3 And maybe it's Just some -- , different -- not different, but the need to 4 MR. LINK: Your Honor, you mind if I S do a motion to strike is different when the S move so I can -- 4 amendment is made, when you come to the 4 THE COURT: Fool free. 7 Court and seek it to exercise its discretion 7 MR. SCAROLA: -- some inability on my 8 to allow an amendment, if it is legally 8 part to comprehend the argument. But ho 9 invalid, there's no reason for the Court to 4 told us repeatedly that Edwards soaks to 10 allow it, because it would be futile. And 10 prove the falsity of the allegations of the 11 that's one of three ways of attacking the 11 complaint instead of proving there was no 12 motion to amend as discussed in all the case 12 probable cause to file the complaint. I 13 law. 13 think ho repeated that statement at least 14 Otherwise, to say it would be futile, I 14 three timers. And quite frankly, I have no 15 guess, we would have to oat into the factual 15 idea what that means. 1e analysis of whore the facts don't support Io In order to prove there was no probable 17 it. But there isn't much difference between 17 cause to file the complaint, we must look at 16 saying the facts don't support it and this 16 the factual allegations in the complaint and 19 ClOOSIVt apply as a matter of law t0 this 10 we must demonstrate that there was no 10 cause of action. 20 probable cause to file those specific II So I believe you are fully authorized 21 factual allegations. That is, w0 must prove 12 tO look at the merits of these claims, which 22 the factual allegations were false, and w0 19 have been argued in the motion and the 23 must prove that there was no reason t0 24 response -- and they've certainly had an 24 believe that they wore true. This wasn't a 15 opportunity today to argue what they thought 25 good faith mistake. 30 32 1 was the legal validity. I So the issues aro identical. And what 2 So to simply put that off and have 2 they were attempting to do by way of this 3 another hearing on it when the question here 5 motion to amend is to get right back to , is, do you allow amendments which I believe 4 whore they wore arguing last week, and that 5 aro clearly not valid to a malicious s is, they don't want to ever have to defend 0 prosecution cause of action. So I believe 0 against the claim that Bradley Edwards 7 you aro authorized to do it on that basis as 7 fabricated false charges against Jeffrey 6 well. 6 Epstein. They don't want to focus on that 0 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Burlington. 9 at all. And this is one more means by which 10 I appreciate your written and oral 10 to attempt to reargue that same position. 21 presentation, as well, Hr. Link. 11 THE COURT: Or fabricated false claims 12 MR. SCAROLA: May I add just a little 12 against Jeffrey Edwards Isic) or -- 13 bit to that? 15 MR. SCAROLA: Jeffrey Epstein. 14 THE COURT: I will give you a couple 14 THE COURT: Fabricated false -- 15 minutes. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Edwards fabricated false 16 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, sir. 16 claims against Epstein. 17 THE COURT: After Hr. Scarola, 1• THE COURT: Correct. 10 Ms. Rockenbach, if you want to add something 18 MR. SCAROLA: Wo will help each other 19 you aro free to do so as wall. 19 out with that. 20 MS. ROCKEHBACK: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Or vice versa for that 21 MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that it 21 matter, that Epstein fabricated false claims 22 will take a couple minutes. 22 against Edwards. Meaning, I am still not 23 It was ono aspect -- 23 sure whore the defendant in the malicious 24 THE COURT: Less than that? 24 prosecution claim, Mr. Epstein, stands as to 25 MR. SCAROLA: Yos, sir. 25 that issue, as to whether or not he's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801603 33 35 conceding or not conceding. Soma of these affirmative defenses, MR. SCAROLA: That has boon 2 quite frankly, in handling defanation claims scrupulously avoided by the other side, Your 3 on numerous occasions in the past, I have 4 Honor. They don't want to face that issue 4 never seen before. I never try to stifle or even acknowledge it exists. I agree with creativity. But at the same tine, we have 6 Your Honor. 6 to take into account, not only judicial THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. scarola. resources, but what the essential argument 0 Mr. Link, couple things that I would of Mr. Burlington boiling it down to its 9 like you to focus on. First is that -- I 9 very essence is you can't fit a square peg 10 appreciate your bringing it to my attention, 10 into a round hole. And that is, that the 11 and I have hoard this before, about the 11 bulk of these affirmative defenses, because 12 punitive export's testimony on behalf of 12 they deal with defamation, ono, aro not 13 Mr. Edwards, that his research has revealed 13 pertinent. Two, even if they were, it's not 14 whatever number of instances whereby 14 a defanation claim. 15 Mr. Edwards' and Mr. Rothstein's names have 15 I certainly do not plan and will not 16 boon linked, presumably as a result of ie try a defamation claim. And also, again, Mr. Epstein's conduct. 17 oven if these could be conceivably construed 16 MR. LINK: Tea, Your Honor. 16 as defamation claims, they don't pass legal 19 THE COURT: I haven't road it very 10 muster. 20 closely. At this point I don't know much of 20 Sone of them, such as the affirmative 21 that testimony is going to got in. But 21 defense regarding the petitioning of the 22 irrespective of that, what Mr. Burlington 22 government, has, in my view, absolutely no 29 has emphasised and what the Court clearly is 23 application to this case, because if it did, 24 under the impression as to its utilisation, 24 it would have application to any lawsuit 25 is not to prove up any other element of the 25 just about that I could conceive of that 34 36 malicious prosecution claim, except for would be brought by any parson, by any 2 damages. 2 plaintiff, by any counter-plaintiff. For example, an affirmative defense to The application is completely in that aspect of the clain could potentially opposite to what we're doing here. This is be that Mr. Edwards failed to mitigate his 5 not rodrassable by virtue of petition to • damages by virtue of his own seal in seeking 0 government, as aro, and as were, publicity for his representation of Mr. -- particularly at the time of those two cases, for his representation of the alleged 6 Hoerr and Pennington, where there wore 9 victims and the plaintiffs in those cases 9 issues of anti-trust violations and the 10 against Epstein, and therefore, cause much 10 testing of whether or not anti-trust laws of his own damages by exercising that seal. 11 wore in fact being violated. And the 17 That may constitute an affirmative 17 government's -- obvious because of the 15 defense as to the damage claim, because just 15 Sherman Act -- the government is obviously, 14 like a simple negligence action is 14 because of Shornan Act, interest in 25 concerned, damages aro a necessary element, 15 protecting against anti-trust violations. 16 similar to the questions I had of you fast 16 So there was that nexus that was clearly 17 week when I asked what were Mr. Epstein's 17 prevalent there. 10 damages as a result of his filing of the 18 So I really don't need further argument 19 initial suit against Rothstein, Edwards and 19 as to the fifth affirmative defense. 20 III. as related to factoring of those cases. 20 The sixth affirmative defense deals 21 So, chore's a distinction of importance 21 with the limited public figure. He haven't 22 that I can see here as it pertains to the 22 really talked about that from your 23 affirmative defenses that have been asserted 23 standpoint. Your position as to that in 24 as it relates to a traditional defamation 24 light of the Corti decision. 25 claim perhaps. 29 MR. LINK: Yes. Me believe that if Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801604 37 39 defamatory statements are going to be the didn't voluntarily put himself out there and 2 basis for liability and for damages so that 2 create an image and a reputation for himself we're moving in absolute litigation 3 and put himself out there in a public way. 4 privilege from allegations in the complaint, There aro easy examples. I represent a 5 then the fact that Mr. Edwards is a quasi high-profile client, Hr. Epstein. After the 6 public figure that puts himself out there. hearing, the press came up, I didn't talk to 7 that advertises, that speaks about those the press. I didn't put myself out there. 0 issues, that issues prose rebates, talked Other lawyers will do that. They will give 9 to the paaaaa should come in as an press releases. 10 affirmative defense in this case. 10 Hr. Edwards went oven beyond that. Ho 11 THE COURT: How do you got around Gertz 11 used those cases to pronto himself in a way 12 essentially saying precisely the opposite, 12 that goes beyond simply representing a 13 that a lawyer -- oven whore a lawyer 13 client. 14 represents a high-profile client? Here 14 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, excuse me. 15 these aren't high-profile clients. 25 There is no record evidence to support that 16 My common sense thinking -- although 26 assertion at all. Absolutely none. 22 really not a part of the decision hero -- is 22 THE COURT: I appreciate that. Thank 20 that outside of South Florida, and had 20 you, Hr. Scarola. 29 Mr. Rothstein not committed the heinous 29 You may proceed. 20 crimes that he's boon convicted for in 20 HR. LINK: So there is a distinction. 22 serving a sentence somewhere in the 21 Simply representing a high-profile client 22 neighborhood of 50 years, Edwards would have 22 does not make you a quasi public figure. 22 been off the radar. There would have boon 22 But doing things that put yourself out 24 no real issues, other than his connection 24 there, contacting the p OOOO O giving 26 with Mr. Epstein. 25 interviews, giving speeches, making 38 40 1 Some may argue that Mr. Epstein is far 1 yourself -- putting yourself out there as a 2 more of a public figure that Hr. Edwards is 2 specialist In this particular area and 3 under the analysis you have suggested. seeking press and accolades dons. That's 4 HR. LINK: Ho may very well be, Your the distinction. 5 Honor. 5 So the fact that I'm representing 6 THE COURT: But that's not the issue Mr. Epstein, who may be a more well-known 2 hero. I don't sae how Gaaaa a with the plain figure, doesn't moan I have done anything to meaning of the opinion, and the fact that assort myself into the public view. That's the attorney in Gores was in fact the distinction I would draw, Your Honor. 20 representing a high-profile client and Chore :0 THE COURT: Anything else you would 21 was afforded immunity -- which wouldn't have II like to speak to? 22 application here whatsoever -- I don't see 22 MR. LINK: Yes, If I can. I just want 29 the basic fundamental issue being answered 29 to touch on a couple points that 24 or oven arguable. 24 Mr. Burlington made and a point Kr. Scarola 36 MR. LINK: If I can take one shot at 36 made. 16 it, Your Honor. 16 Hero la the key to this and these 17 THE COURT: Sure. 17 affirmative defenses. And Your Honor asked 10 MR. LINK: I think the difference is 10 a groat question. You asked Hr. Burlington 19 the fact that you represent a high-profile 19 if any cases -- any of the malicious 20 client does not make you a quasi public 20 prosecution cases say that you can take 21 figure. It's the stops and actions that you 21 false statement -- allegedly a false 22 take as a result of that. 22 statement from a complaint -- and use that 23 So, the fact that the throe plaintiffs 23 to demonstrate lack of probable cause or 24 that Mr. Edwards represented were not 24 damages. And he pointed to the Nancusl 25 high-profile folks does not mean that ho 25 Case. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801605 41 43 1 Your Honor, we looked at this case last boon defined very carefully. Here is what 2 time that wo were here. It's a case that the court said. The court says that 3 Your Honor pointed out, I believe, that continued means this: One, if I'm a new 4 talks about the mixed question of fact of lawyer coming in, I don't have a defense if 5 law and the probable cause. There's no there was not probable cause. 6 discussion of damages other than punitive If I come in, don't do my homework and 7 damages in the case. It sets forth the I continue with the proceeding, that's one standards that your court told us about and aspect. 9 recognized, which is, if there's no dispute The Second aspect is, I may have 10 as t0 the facts that were relied on in 10 probable cause when I start, but if during 11 making the decision to bring a lawsuit, then 11 the course of the lawsuit something comes to 12 it's up to you. And I said Your Honor may 12 my attention that makes me now conclude that 13 decide enough or not enough. It's your 13 what I thought was true is not true, I have 14 call. It's not the jury's decision. That's 14 to stop, Your Honor. I don't get to keep 36 what Mancusi says. IS going. But it has nothing to do with the 26 There is not a case that we have 26 allegations of the complaint, what I say 17 seen -- and we looked at about 65 -- 67 37 during my deposition, what you say during 30 cases, Florida cases, that discussed that I9 the case, what the other lawyer say during 19 you can use an allegation in the complaint 29 the case. 20 to either show lack of probable cause, based 20 And if you look at every one of those 21 on the truth or falsity, or use It to 21 elements -- really important to look at 22 establish damages. And here Ls why. 22 every one of these elements, except for 29 Hr. Burlington doesn't think that the 29 malice. Use of the words the original 24 Supreme Court case answers the question, but 24 proceeding. IS I think it does. And here is what I want to 25 Six, the plaintiff suffered damage as a 42 44 1 focus the Court on. It is not, Your Honor, 1 result of the original proceeding. Again, 2 simply the first element of the malicious 2 that's the filing of the complaint. 3 prosecution element that focuses on civil And you look at Florida's jury judicial proceeding. This is from the instructions -- Supreme Court case. 5 Mr. Scorpio, I don't have them, but Every element, If you look, an original they are tho standard jury instructions. civil judicial proceeding. It doesn't say -- and look at damages, 406.12, Your 8 count, allegation, complaint. It talks in Honor, on malicious prosecution, you won't 9 the big picture. Why? Because once the see anything In there about the publication 10 lawsuit is filed, that's the damage, the :0 of a false statement or damage Caused by a 31 filing of the lawsuit, not what you plead in II false statement. 12 it. That's protected by the litigation 22 Contrast that with defamation, which it 19 privilege. 13 specifically says if you find that there was 24 The present defendant was the legal 14 a false statement, It's a whole different 35 Cause of the original proceeding. Second IS Standard for damages. )6 element uses the term original proceeding. 16 THE COURT: Again, we aro going t0 need 17 Third element: Determination of the original 17 get t0 that bridge when we COMO to lt. But 10 proceeding. 10 the malicious prosecution damages state, 19 THE COURT: You think that the 19 quote, if you find for defendant, you will 20 terminology, 'an original criminal or civil 20 not consider the matter of damages. If you 21 judicial proceeding against the present 21 find for the plaintiff, you should award the 22 plaintiff was commenced or continued,' seems 22 plaintiff an amount of money that the 23 to bring in, at least arguably, more than 23 greater weight of the evidence shows would 24 just the initial complaint? 24 fairly and adequately compensate him for 25 MR. LINK: Yes. But the continue has 25 such loss, injury, damage as the greater Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801606 45 47 1 weight of the evidence shows was caused by i anything you want to say to robot 2 the institution -- and than it also 2 Hr. Burlington's argument or his written 3 parenthetically states -- continuation of 7 presentation, fool free to do so. 4 the proceeding complained of. 4 MR. LINK: As I have handed the court S MR. LINK: So it depends on the focus. S the Mancusi case, Your Honor, which does not 4 Hr. Scarola has not said -- I don't think -- 4 say anything about statements or allegations 7 he has always said we're focused on the 7 In the complaint or damages other than 8 initial filing. There's not probable cause 8 punitive damages. 4 for the initial filing. That's what ho has 4 The Supreme Court tolls us that there 10 told us. Ho has not said there was probable 10 is still a litigation privilege afforded to 11 cause at the beginning, Your Honor, but down 11 every litigant. Tho narrow exemption has to 12 the road Hr. Epstein loarnad something and 12 do between when you make the decision to 13 he should have stopped than. 13 institute -- 14 So based on exactly what you road, it 14 Mr. Scarola said that he sees them as 15 focuses on, was caused by the institution of 15 the sane thing. They aro very different. le it, the filing of it. Io Ono draws a line when you filo the lawsuit. 17 THE COURT: Continuation is one of the 17 And what's on this side of lino and before 16 words that's utilised right Chore in bold, 16 the lawsuit is filed is what is in your nand 19 black print. 10 when you make the decision. And that is not 20 MR. LINK: If ho was arguing that it 20 protected. II was continuation to cause damages. Ho's 21 But what you plead in the complaint, 22 not. He's not, I don't believe -- unless 22 and the truth and falsity of those 23 he's changed his mind. IS allegations is absolutely protected. And 14 THE COURT: Is that true? 14 that's what the Supremo Court just told us. IS MR. SCAROLA: No, Your Honor. It is IS Thank you, Your Honor. 46 48 I not true. Wo contend there was no probable / THE COURT: All right. Thank you, 2 cause to initiate this proceeding, Chore was 2 Hr. Link. Tho Court is prepared to rule. 1 3 no probable cause to continue the a am going to go through it one stop at a time 4 proceeding. Tho initiation and continuation 4 and proceed through the fifth through the 5 of the proceeding caused damage to Bradley 5 ninth affirmative defenses. 0 Edwards, both because no probable cause over 0 Tho Court finds, as far as the fifth 7 existed. So it was both initiated and 7 affirmative defense is concerned that the 6 continued in absence of probable cause. 6 pleading made here has no relationship 9 MR.LINK: Your Honor, that only makes 9 whatsoever to the case at bar. This is not 10 sense. If you think what about Hr. Scarola 10 a forum of petitioning government for 11 just said, if it's not probable cause when I 11 redress. Tho Court has stated, and in 12 filo it, and I continuo with the lawsuit, 12 agreement with Edwards' position, that 15 then there was never probable cause. IS neither Pennington nor Hoerr, H-0-E-R-R, 14 But the continuation isn't I filed it 14 have any application to this claim anymore 15 and it should have boon eliminated that day. 15 than it would have tO any generic Clan, 15 The second day after the lawsuit it's 15 brought by any plaintiff. 17 already boon continued. 17 This is not an anti-trust case. This 10 THE COURT: I will give you two minutes 18 is not a Case where the government 19 to wrap up. No had planned on 40 minutes. 19 involvement is either directly or indirectly 20 Ife aro now going on 55. But again, I want 20 at issue as it relates to the affirmative 21 to give both sides the opportunity -- 21 defense generally claiming that this is a, 22 MR. LINK: I appreciate that. 22 quote, forum of petitioning government for 23 THE COURT: I have read the materials 23 redress, end quote. It is simply 24 and I have hoard the arguments. I don't 24 inapplicable. Any amendment along those 25 want to get into repetition. So if there's 2S grounds will Do futile. Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801607 49 51 As far as the sixth affirmative analysis, or have seen his deposition 2 defense, the Court finds that as a matter of 2 transcript -- but the Court will certainly 3 law that the Carts case speaks to this issue be amenable to motions that may limit that 4 broadly and specifically, and does not place testimony so that we do not blur the fine 5 Mr. Edwards in the position of a general or line between what may be construed as 6 limited purpose public figure. Hence, any defamation and malicious prosecution. 7 affirmative defense that rely upon that But certainly the Court understands -- theory aro, again, completely, entirely and was under the impression even before 9 inapplicable to the matters that are 9 reading the brief by Hr. Burlington -- that 10 addressed in this case. 10 the claims here were one of damages as it 11 The seventh affirmative defense falls 11 relates to this -- allegedly false 12 because of the same . Additionally, 12 statements or statements that linked Edwards 13 the suggestion that in accordance with the 13 and Rothstein together, which if 14 First and Fourteenth amendments of the 14 attributable to Mr. Epstein which aro 15 United States Constitution and Article 1, 15 brought before the jury, they could 26 Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, 26 constitute damages. 22 Edwards may not recover presumed or punitive 27 So again, there's no applicability to 26 damages without clear and convincing 26 defamation. It's generic, general manner in 29 evidence that Epstein knew of the falsity of 29 which the defense is phrased would not pass 20 the claims that he made against Edwards were 20 legal muster as wall, and any attempt to II in reckless disregard of the falsity of 21 amend would be futile in this Court's view 22 these claims would reconstitute argument and 22 because of the distinction legally between 22 a denial, as opposed to a confession and 22 defamation and malicious prosecution. 14 avoidance as required by Florida law so as 24 As far as the ninth affirmative defense 25 to constitute a valid affirmative defense. 25 is concerned, again, in agreement with the 50 52 Again, it primarily relies on Gertz. position taken by Edwards, I find that the 2 which as I found earlier, is contrary 2 built-in remedies that are already 3 directly to the position espoused by established In Florida law will provide any Mr. Epstein. And the Carts decision, as we safeguards that are sought by Mr. Epstein as 5 all know, is a United States Supremo Court 5 it relates to the punitive damages. And decision found at 418 US 323, 1974. merely a recitation of the law does not 2 The eighth affirmative defense constitute confession or avoidance as far as specifically addresses defenses to a the Court is concerned. defamation claim. It states, quote, It would be similar to saying words to :o Edwards' claims are nothing more than :0 the effect that the rules of evidence shall 11 defamation claims which are barred by 22 apply to this case. That is, that there's 12 defenses applicable to defamation claims as 22 an application of the Fifth and Fourteenth IS set forth in the defenses above. IS amendments of the United States Constitution le A plaintiff may not avoid defenses that 14 and Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida 25 apply to defamation actions by 15 constitution guaranteeing duo process. 16 characterizing them as torts which aro not 16 In any case where punitive damages are 17 subject to those restrictions, as the court 17 brought, those built-ln due process law -- 10 pointed out In agreeing with the position 10 whether decisional or statutory, 19 taken by Edwards, that is, that that is not 19 constitutional or otherwise -- are all. built 20 a defamation claim. This will not be tried 20 In to the already existing Florida law. And 21 as a defamation claim. And any issues as to 21 the ninth affirmative defense is 22 the utilization of Mr. Edward's name in 22 superfluous, and it would be no reason to 23 print linking to Mr. Rothstein and 23 allow amendment. It's simply a statement of 24 presumably -- again, I haven't read in 24 the law and not a confession of avoidance. 25 detail the proposed export's report or 25 So the Court finds, thereafter, that Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801608 53 55 1 each of the affirmative defenses would i counsel. 2 constitute the improper affirmative defenses 2 And while the package itself is thick, 3 would not be subject to amendment because of 3 it's only thick because we have provided 4 futility -- the Court has addressed each of 4 Your Honor with the backup information. S those affirmative defenses In requisite S In this motion, there aro specific 6 detail finding that they aro either in 6 questions and answers, so that Your Honor 7 opposite, that they aro contrary to 7 can very quickly take a look at the e establish law and thus would be futile to e questions that we propose to address and the 4 try to amend, particularly whore I 4 assertions of the Fifth Amendment in 10 referenced the Carts decision as well as the 10 response to those questions. 11 anti-trust cases that wore found to bo 11 HS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I 12 completely and entirely in opposite to the 12 respond? 11 claims made hero. 11 THE COURT: Sure. 14 This is not a defamation case. It will 14 MS. ROCKENBACH: As I indicate to 15 not bo treated as such. It has bean 15 Mr. Scarola this morning, he filed those 16 represented in open court by Edwards' le y00000day afternoon. And I am happy to 17 counsel that any issues regarding the link 17 review them and go over them and present 16 between Rothstein and Edwards aro going to 16 argument to the Court perhaps this afternoon 19 be used solely for damages purposes. And 10 or Thursday when we have the continuation of 20 the Court has not been asked at this 20 this hearing. II juncture to limit any such testimony, but is 21 But having received them yesterday 22 amendable to taking up any motions in that 22 afternoon and not prepared to take Cho= up 19 regard and will treat those at such time. 23 right now, I would suggest that perhaps the 24 Again, the ninth affirmative defense is 14 better place to pick back up on the pending 15 simply a recitation of law that is already 15 motions is precisely whore we loft off on 54 56 1 built in and well-known and oven conceded by I November 29th, which was Exhibit 9 on 2 the parties is not a confession of 2 Mr. Edward's Exhibit list. 3 avoidance, thus making each futile in terns a THE COURT: I am certainly more 4 of attempting to amend. 4 prepared as well to go through that. I 5 I would ask for an order confirming the 5 would like to got a chance to road it. 0 Court's ruling, please, from the Edwards 0 As you know, I do the best I can to try 7 side. 7 to road everything that comes in and 6 Anybody needs a break? 6 familiarize myself with the context. So I'm 9 MR. SCAROLA: Wo aro ready to proceed, 9 going to sustain Ms. Rockenbach's 10 Your Honor, if the Court is ready. 10 suggestion and objection to going forward 11 Your Honor, we had started off last 11 with this particular issue at this time. 12 weak dealing with issues with respect to the 12 Lot's go back to the evidentiary 15 Fifth Amendment. Your Honor had asked us 15 issues. I am also prepared to discuss, as 14 to -- or we had actually volunteered to 14 well -- and I don't know whether it's still 15 specifically identify the limited questions 15 on the table -- I presume it is -- it's the 16 that wo would wish to place before the jury. 16 alltO21atiC stay issue. 17 We volunteered that we would identify the 17 So if there's any reason that 10 limited questions that wo wanted place 10 Mr. Burlington needs to be hero -- because I 19 before the jury? 19 believe there's been sone request that one 20 In light of Your Honor's statement that 20 of the attorneys -- I presume to be 21 we should bo focusing only on the civil 21 Mr. Burlington -- had to leave, which is why 22 claims against the throe plaintiffs 22 they wanted to speak about this affirmative 23 represented by Mr. Edwards, we have done 23 defense Issue and the denial of Epstein's 24 that. And I want to present the Court with 24 request to amend his answer. 25 packets that wo have presented to opposing 2S MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Burlington, Your Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801609 57 59 Honor, does not need to be here for the 1 speak to actually disallowing Daubert 2 automatic stay issue. No wanted, for 2 motions, for example, from being heard purposes of conserving his time, to be able 3 during the trial for the vary purpose that I 4 to address the one matter that he would be 4 just cited. And that is, that these folks arguing today, and we have done that. • are coming in as volunteers, often 5 Ho may or nay not be able to stay any • reluctantly, taking significant amount of longer, but ho is not required to be hero • time away from their businesses, jobs, 8 for the other matters. 8 families to be hero with us, should not have 9 With regard to going through the 9 their time wasted if we can get done on the 10 exhibit list, I had proposed to opposing 10 front end what nay not need to bo done 11 counsel, and I think I managed -- I think I 11 during trial. 12 referenced this with the Court also during 12 SO I'm comfortable with going through 13 the hearing that I am prepared to agree that 13 the exhibits, because there may be some 14 I will not reference any of those specific 14 apparent -- at least from my vantage 25 exhibits that the defense identifies as a 15 point -- reasons why sone exhibits should or 16 problen in opening statement. And I io should not be admitted or not admitted. 27 won't -- I won't reference Cho= with a 17 And as I pointed out -- and you aro 16 witness unless and until Your Honor has nada 16 correct Mr-Scarola in your global 10 a determination that it is appropriate for 10 observation, that because the law, more 20 us to do so. 20 recently than in the past, has, as I earlier 21 To go through every listed exhibit and 21 indicated on November 29th, that the 22 obtain from Your Honor a ruling that 22 appellate courts recognize what they torn 23 obviously is not going to do any more than 23 the fluid nature of motions in liming, which 24 what I am prepared to concede to do 24 is essentially what we're dealing with here 25 voluntarily, respectfully doesn't make any 25 when we talk about exhibits. 58 60 sense to me. I don't know why wo are going The Court will have the opportunity -- 2 through this process, because the most Your 2 and should have the opportunity that if a 3 Honor could do would be to say, I will give contested exhibit comas to fruition during a preliminary indication. At such time as 4 the trial to be able to either augment its the evidence is offered, we will make a decision, change its mind, or confirm the determination as to whether a predicate decision made pretrial. exist to admit it or not. So I'm willing to But I disagree that it is a waste of 6 do that. 6 time because a lot of the arguments can be 9 I think we aro absolutely wasting our 9 made now. I Can digest those arguments. I time to go through the large number of Won't forget, and I won't forget the context exhibits that you've identified for purposes of what those arguments are in relation CO of getting to exactly the point where I an exhibits. So I would like to proceed, as 15 willing to move voluntarily. 15 recommended by Epstein's counsel, to go 14 THE COURT: Well, couple things, and 14 through what we can go through. 15 that is this. Ha aro always mindful -- and 15 No will do it in a little more of an 15 I am speaking about now trial judges -- but 14 expeditious fashion, and that is, if I find 17 attorneys as well -- I know any good 17 there's something that really does need 18 attorney, such as all who aro sitting in 18 absolutely, without question, context for MO 19 this room, aro certainly wall aware of 19 to make that decision, than I will indicate 20 ensuring that the jury's time is spent in an 20 to you that rather quickly in that regard so 21 efficient manner. That's why the 21 we don't waste too much time. 22 overwhelming federal case law -- because 22 But I think we can go through those 23 Daubert WO don't know If it's going to 23 with some comfort to know at least what the 24 remain law here in Florida -- but that's why 24 Court is thinking from that standpoint, 25 the overwhelming cases on the Daubert issue 2S perhaps ruling at this point, with the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801610 61 63 1 caveat that consistent with motions in Thanks. 2 limlne and the recognition by the appellate MS. ROCKENBACH: You do. Okay. 3 courts -- much to my delight -- that there Our objections were filed November 15. 4 aro often situations where situations will I That's obviously a separate document. 5 change and context Is introduced to cause THE COURT: That I will take. 6 the Court to, perhaps, vary its decision in I MR. LINK: Your Honor, they aro listed 7 acme regard. But that is afforded to me in the motion starting on page three. 8 once trial is underway. THE COURT: I thought those were just 9 MR. LINK: Your Honor, before we start, r exemplars. 10 can I take you up on your three-minute break 10 MR. LINK: In the omnibus motion in 11 opportunity, please. 11 limLne, it actually lists, I think, every 12 THE COURT: Sure. Not a problem. Take 12 single one of the exhibits. They are 13 a few minutes. Como on back about five 11 identified in here. So they are in two 14 minutes, p 14 places. 25 IA recess was had 11:16 - 11:24 J 15 THE COURT: Page three of the revised 26 HR. SCAROLA: May I make a procedural 16 omnibus motion in linine? 27 inquiry, Your Honor? 17 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, it's the 20 THE COURT: Yes. 18 original omnibus -- 29 HR. SCAROLA: I assume that we are IS THE COURT: Is that part of the -- 20 starting on page 23 of Jeffrey Epstein's 20 MR. SCAROLA: If we are working with 22 revised omnibus motion in ',mine. Is that 21 the witness list -- I mean with the exhibit 22 correct? 21 list, we will just work with the exhibit 29 THE COURT: That's what I am 23 list. 24 understanding. 24 THE COURT: Let's do that. 25 Hs. Rockenbach? 25 MR. LINK: That works for us, Your 62 64 1 HR. SCAROLA: That's where we left off. I Honor. 2 MS. ROCKENBACH: Yea. The exhibit 2 THE COURT: Thanks. 9 section, which should be letter B. , HR. SCAROLA: So I assume we are going 4 MR. SCAROLA: Well, the specific 4 to take these one at a tiro? S exhibits that you aro objecting to aro 5 THE COURT: Yeah. if identified in this motion, correct? . MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, the next 7 MS. ROCKENBACH: Actually, we one that we were on was number nine, 0 stopped -- we left off as Mr. Edwards' e Mr. Epstein's flight logs -- if I may 9 exhibit list and we are on number nine. approach, I would like to give Your Honor 20 The revised omnibus motion in limine, :0 what was provided to my office from 11 identified examples of the objections that 11 Mr. Scarola. And it is a sampling, because 22 we had. And we have listed and filed our II I think there were over 200 pages for this 12 objections to the exhibit list. 23 particular exhibit. 14 THE COURT: Where is the list of 14 we've objected basis of relevance, of 25 exhibits? 25 90.403, judicial value. And these aro 16 MR. SCAROLA: If you have an extra 16 flight logs of my client's planes. They 17 copy, I need one also, please. I gave mine 17 have no relevance to what is being tried in 18 to Sonja at the end of the last hearing. 10 this case, which is malicious prosecution. 19 And I was assuming we were going to be 19 Mr. Edwards testified that ho knew that 20 basing this discussion on the motion. 20 his clients were not on my client's plane, 21 MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I 21 so the flight logs are completely 22 approach? I have a copy for Mr. Scaaaaa. 22 irrelevant. 23 It is Hr. Epstein's amended exhibit list 23 THE COURT: Okay, Hr. Scarola. 24 that we were reviewing. 24 MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Your Honor, one of 25 THE COURT: I actually have it. 25 the alleged bases for Jeffrey Epstein having Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801611 65 67 concluded that Bradley Edwards was a knowing 1 knowing participant in the Pon2I scheme. 2 participant in the Rothstein Ponzi scheme is 2 That's what he alleges. In fact, 3 that the scope of the discovery that Bradley 3 portions of the deposition of Bradley 4 Edwards was seeking once he became a member • Edwards have already been identified by the 5 of the Rothstein, Rosonfeldt, Adler firm defense as their intending to introduce this 6 expanded to include matters that he was not in evidence before the "Ivy. 7 previously focusing on and which had no I have soma of those excerpts, if you reasonable basis to lead to the discovery of • Your Honor needs to take a look at them. 9 admissible evidence. 9 They are offing that evidence with regard to 10 So he alleged that the abusive 10 these matters as part of their support for 11 discovery that Bradley Edwards engaged Ln 11 the lack of Bradley Edwards' probable cause 12 gave him reason to believe that he was only 12 to conduct this discovery, the assertion 13 doing those things because he was knowingly 13 that this was an abuse of discovery process. 14 supporting the Ponzi schema. 14 Now, that's what they alleged in their 25 So Bradley Edwards obviously has an 15 complaint. Those specific allegations aro 26 opportunity to explain what he did and why 26 included in the complaint. Those are false I/ he did it. Yes, I was seeking discovery 27 allegations. 29 with regard to the airplane flight logs and 28 THE COURT: Show me those allegations 29 who was on the airplane. And the reason why 19 that you aro suggesting? 10 I did that was, because oven though my own 10 MR. SCAROLA: From the complaint, Your 21 clients wore not transported on the plane, I 21 Honor, or from the deposition testimony? 22 know that other young woman were transported 22 THE COURT: Either way, or both. 29 on the plane for purposes of prostitution 29 HR. SCAROLA: Let me do both, then. 24 and sexual abuse. And I can prove that 24 THE COURT: Thanks. 15 through the flight logs that list the other 25 HR. SCAROLA: It's a little bit 66 68 occupants on the airplane, including difficult for Your Honor to see on these 2 children who were being transported by 2 copies what the defense has designated, but 3 Jeffrey Epstein. on page 153 it starts at line two and Part of what makes this is a viable continues through -- it looks like the federal claim is the intrastate and bottom of that page. And then on 276, 277, international transportation of children for 270 and 279, it's most of all of those 7 purposes of prostitution. pages. 8 The federal law, specifically federal Then In the complaint, the allegation 9 rule 41.5 -- excuse me 415.5(g) -- and I in paragraph 35 -- and I will pause, if Your 30 referenced this in earlier argument to the :0 Honor would like me to do that, while you 31 Court -- expressly allows the introduction Il aro reading that. 22 into evidence in any case involving a sexual 22 THE COURT: If you will take a moment 29 offense against a child, the commission of Is please. Thanks. 24 any other sexual offense against a child. 24 I don't see much as far as what is set IS So, I was seeking evidence to prove a IS forth in the latter pages of the deposition 16 pattern of abuse of children including their 16 of Mr. Edwards that even mentions piano or 17 transportation for purposes of prostitution. 17 it's connection with the alleged underaged 10 And I was doing that through flight logs 10 individuals on that plane. 19 that identified these children, flight logs 19 Let me look at the complaint. 20 that identified other witnesses, taking the 20 Paragraph? 21 depositions of pilots. And so all of this 21 HR. SCAROLA: Thirty-three, 34, 35, 36. 22 is information than rebuts the assertion by 22 THE COURT: Okay. This is directed to 23 Jeffrey Epstein that this was an abusive 23 primarily to Mr. Rothstein. It says •and 24 discovery effort that supported my 24 others.• But it says, quote -- paragraph 25 conclusion that Bradley Edwards was a 25 34 -- Upon Information and belief, Rothstein Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801612 69 71 and others clained their investigators 1 the cases and thus by using the depositions 2 discovered that there were high-profile 2 to sell the cases -- or a part of them -- to individuals onboard Epstein's private jot third parties, end quote. 4 whore sexual assaults took place and showed 4 421k). Told investigators, as reported 5 03 -- and possibly others -- copies of a in an Associated Press article, that flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities and other famous people had celebrities, dignitaries and international 7 flown on Epstein's plane when assaults took 8 figures. 8 place. Therefore, oven though none of RRA's 9 Remind who is 1,3? clients claim they flew on Epstein's planes, 10 HS. ROCKENBACR: Ono of investing 10 the litigation team sought pilot and flight 11 companies that was being defrauded by II logs. Why? Again, to prime the investment 12 Rothstein. 12 pump, enquote, with new money without any 13 THE COURT: Okay. I have road those 13 relevance to the existing claims made by RRA 14 other ones. Aro there any other -- 14 the clients, end quote. 15 MR. SCAROLA: Paragraph 35, Your Honor, 15 MR. SCAROLA: Our position, obviously, 16 then specifically references the litigation le is Your Honor, that having made those 17 team. As you recall, the litigation team is 17 specific allegations in the complaint, 16 defined as including Bradley Edwards. 16 specifically allegations that know assaults 19 THE COURT: Thirty-five. For instance, 10 took place on the plane, Mr. Epstein know 20 the litigation team relentlessly and 20 that that was untrue. He knew that children 21 knowingly pursued flight data and passenger 21 were being assaulted on the plane, he knew 22 manifests regarding flights Epstein took 22 that there very high-profile individuals who 23 with fanous individuals knowing full well 23 for were present on plane. And Bradley 24 that no underaged woman wore onboard and no la Edwards had a reasonable basis to conduct 25 illicit activities took place. Rothstein 25 this discovery pursuant to applicable 70 72 and the litigation team also inappropriately Florida law and applicable federal law as 2 attempted to take the depositions of these 2 well as, because it was reasonably 3 celebrities in a calculated effort to 3 calculated to load to the discovery of bolster the marketing scam that was taking admissiblo evidence. 5 place. End quota. So the flight logs aro clearly relevant 6 There's a 40 something that was 6 and material for that purpose, as is all of mentioned? the evidence with regard to what Mr. Epstein MR. SCAROLA: I don't know if Your know was occurring on those airplanes. And 9 Honor took a look at 36, but that's a 9 that directly contradicts what is included 10 specific reference to Mr. Edwards and his 10 in this complaint as a basis for his belief 21 conduct of the discovery, and then 421k). 11 that Bradley Edwards was fabricating these 12 THE COURT: Thirty-six. Ono of 12 claims. 13 plaintiffs' counsel, Edwards, deposed three 13 THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Scarola. I4 of Epstein's pilots, and sought the 14 MS. ROCKENBACR: Your Honor, may I use 15 deposition of a fourth pilot. Tho pilots 15 the Elno for a minute? 16 were deposed by Edwards for over 12 hours, 14 THE COURT: Sure. 17 and Edwards never asked ono question 17 MS. ROCKENBACR: I really appreciated 18 relating to or about E.M., III. and Jane Doe 18 Mr. Link's presentation this morning based 19 as it related to transportation on flights 19 on the law, because after the November 29th 20 of RRA clients on any of Epstein's planes. 20 hearing, I wont back and I spent a good part 21 But Edwards asked many inflammatory and 21 of the weekend looking at malicious 22 leading irrelevant questions about the 22 prosecution cases, because I thought I must 23 pilots' thoughts and beliefs, which could 23 have missed sonething. I must have missed 24 only have been asked for the purposes of 24 something, because all I hear Mr. scarola in 25 pumping -- that word is used In quotes -- 25 court saying he's going to prove that the Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801613 73 75 1 allegations In the original proceeding that 1 Hr. Scarola wants to try other cases. This 2 my client filed are false. And I never know 2 Is not a sexual abuse casco. It is not a 3 that to be a malicious prosecution action. 3 federal court action a Crime Victims' Rights 4 But my research yielded what Mr. Link 4 action. It's not even a defamation case, 5 indicated this morning, which Is the which Your Honor clearly stated this morning 6 Debrincat case is the blueprint for this when denying the affirmative defense is 7 trial. The Dobrincat case actually has the related to defamation. most guiding principle in it for this court, So to allow flight logs into this 9 which is going to, I think superimpose the 9 malicious prosecution case is completely 10 entire exhibit list of Mr. Scarola as it 10 irrelevant to the issue of whether the facts 11 relates to a lot of those exhibits that go 11 that my client rolled on when he filed the 12 to ono of the other lawsuits, whether it's 12 original proceeding wore in existence at the 13 Mr. Edwards's lawsuits on behalf of the 13 time that he filed it. The facts are that 14 three woman who sued Mr. Epstein and was 14 there was a civil action forfeiture 35 settled in 2010 -- that case Is over -- or 35 proceeding against Rothstein filed with the 36 the exhibits go to ono of the other 26 U.S. Attorney's Office, that the Rothstein's 17 lawsuits. 27 firm was dissolving, that Mr. Edwards hold 20 The statement in Debrincat that's so 28 himself out as a partner in that firm, that 19 important is that Your Honor, Mr. Scarola 29 Mr. Edwards had the three lawsuits -- which 20 and I, parties and witnesses, should be 20 he oven concedes in his most recent 21 absolutely excepted from liability to an 21 deposition -- were used by Mr. Rothstein to 22 action for defamatory words published In the 22 fabricate -- and that's the word that 29 course of judicial proceedings. 29 Mr. Edwards testified to under oath -- to 24 So when Mr. Scarola pulls out my 24 fabricate -- and create a fantasy -- that 25 complaint, my client's original proceeding 25 was another word Mr. Edwards used. 74 76 1 and wants to parse through independent Those facts, did they exist? It sounds 2 allegations or paragraphs and say, I'm going 2 like we're in agreement. Those facts 3 to prove that that statement is false and existed. 4 you should novor plod Lt. That's not what The razorback lawsuit brought by 5 the malicious prosecution law says. That's Mr. Bill Scherer down in Fort Lauderdale who 6 not what we aro here to do. was quoted in a newspaper article my client We here for Your Honor to decide as a road and relied that said Mr. Rothstein was threshold matter whether the facts that my tricking investors. He used Epatoin's cases 9 client reasonably relied on existed at the 9 as a showpiece and bait. Which Epstein 30 time ho commenced the original proceeding. 20 cases? The one that Edwards had. 31 And, in fact, that's the Liabos case II So the flight logs aro irrelevant. 22 that Your Honor discussed with us back on 22 They are far astray from what we are here to 13 November 29th. whore there's a mixed 29 try. And they aro an attempt to open up 24 question of fact of law Your Honor has to do 24 some other lawsuit, sexual -- 35 that threshold determination of if there's IS By the way, the three clients of 16 any question or dispute of those facts that 16 Mr. Edwards, Mr. Edwards concedes were 17 my client rolled on wore not In existence. 17 not -- you never heard Hr. Scarola deny 10 If the facts existed, then you have to 10 that -- because Mr. Edwards conceded, they 19 determine, as the Court, whether my client 19 aro not on my client's planes. 20 had sufficient probable cause. 20 So this, like many of the other 21 So what are the facts that my client 21 exhibits, Your Honor must be precluded, 22 valor' on? They aro not the flight logs. 22 because they aro wholly irrelevant. And if 23 He's not relying on those flight logs. 23 there was any remote probative value, they 24 That's a complete rod herring for the Court. 24 aro prejudicial to talk about flight logs 25 I see why it's a focus, though, because 25 and celebrities who may have boon on my Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801614 77 79 1 client's planes. I comes up an it's introduced or attempted to 2 THE COURT: I think that the issue 2 be introduced outside the presence of the 3 , meaning the tangential allegations 3 jury. 4 that were made that mentioned flight logs or 4 To the, what I perceive to be three 5 mentioned the good faith discovery aspects S questions, the two former questions, the 6 of Mr. Edwards' plight relating to his three n answer would be yes. 7 clients has some relevancy. MR. SCAROLA: Will the Court take 8 However, the flight logs themselves a judicial notice of Florida Statute 90.404 9 would be subject to -- and the Court is 6 (2), which is commonly referred tO as the 10 sustaining at this juncture the relevancy 10 a ass Rule, and federal rule 415(g), 11 objection, and also a 403 objection. And 11 which exp permits the introduction of 12 that is, that while mentioning the fact that 12 evidence with regard t0 other sexual 13 Mr. Edwards in good faith -- whatever the 13 assaults against children, so that the Jury 14 case may have bean -- sought these flight 14 is away of the fact that Mr. Edwards, not 25 logs as part of his discovery process 35 only had a good faith basis to conduct this 26 representing the three young women, at the 26 discovery, but quite arguably would have 27 same time the Court has expressly indicated 27 been grossly negligent to have failed to 24 its significant reservations. And in fact, 20 pursue it? 39 it's condemnation of trying either those 29 THE COURT: The only thing I would may 20 cases in this courtroom -- as far as the 20 to that, Mr. Scarola, is I don't want t0 nix 22 malicious prosecution case is concerned -- 22 apples and oranges. And that la, I don't 22 or more importantly that we are going to 22 want to place the Court's incriminator on 29 potentially constructively try other either 29 getting too far afield and turning this into 24 underaged or over the age of consent -- 24 a case about alleged sexual exploitation, 25 albeit potential sexual assault claims -- In 25 particularly of others outside of 78 80 1 this forum. 1 Mr. Edwards' representation. That would 2 So again, while it nay become relevant 2 serve only to inflame the Jury, and, again, s as t0 why Mr. Edwards went about his $ would cause the playing field to become 4 business in seeking out those flight logs in 4 unleveled, because the defense to the 5 a matter of good faith discovery, the flight 5 malicious prosecution claim, l.e., Epstein 6 logs themselves, in this Court's respectful e and his attorneys, would have to be fighting 7 view based upon its ruling, are Irrelevant. claims that they may not even know about 0 And if there's any probative value at all, 6 much, much loss the ones that they do. 9 they would be materially outweighed by the 9 So again, I want to center on those 26 prejudice of 403. 20 throe claims that were brought by 21 MR. SCAROLA: May I raise a qu 21 Mr. Edwards on behalf of his clients, and 22 Your Honor? 22 center on those aspects that would be 29 THE COURT: Briefly. 29 relevant to the malicious prosecution claim 24 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. 24 and the alleged ginning up of those claims, 25 Do I understand the Court's ruling to 35 the alleged attempt to align himself with 16 be that Mr. Edwards is going to be able to 16 Rothstein, the alleged attempt to factor 17 explain why he was seeking the discovery he 17 those cases, potentially Mr. Edwards' 10 was seeking, why he was seeking the flight 18 conduct as it related to those factoring 19 logs, the fact that he did obtain flight 19 matters. 20 logs that confirmed independent information 20 MR. SCAROLA: I am -- I am sorry. I 21 about children being transported on the 21 didn't mean to interrupt. 22 airplane. 22 THE COURT: What I'm trying to say is 23 THE COURT: The latter is the one that 23 things like flight logs, the danger of 24 will have to b0 discussed further, again, as 24 unfair prejudice. And also, in -- to answer 25 I pointed out earlier, when the context 25 your question regarding the cases that talk Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801615 81 83 about the prior similar acts or perhaps oven commentary as to Mr. Epstein, nor, 2 subsequent similar acts, those cases aro 2 obviously, as to the three plaintiff, at 3 from the forum of which the actual criminal issue. 4 claim, or perhaps oven a civil claim that And as conceded by Epstein in his 5 stems from the alleged assault, is being papers, once Mr. Mr. Link and Ma. Rockonbach 6 hoard. became involved to the matter, and that is 7 Again, what I'm trying to emphasize is there's no conceivable way that those issues 0 that I do not want to introduce tangential Can be ignored, because of the nature of 9 matters into this case which would either Mr. Epatoin's announced defense as well as 10 directly or indirectly, whether purposefully 10 his deposition testimony to the extent that 11 or not, inflame this jury. 11 ho testified. And that is, that these throe 12 So that la the ruling of the Court. 12 cases were a part of some typo of an 13 I want to move forward now on the nowt 13 elaborate schema by Rothstein and others, 14 issue that's Doing objected to, that is what 14 including the litigation team -- which la 25 is generically listed as Jeffrey £pstein'a IS defined as Including Edwards -- to somehow 26 phone records. 26 inflate, gin up, ovoroxaggerate, whatever I/ MS. ROCKEHBACH: May I approach, Your 27 the case may bo, the value of those cases to 28 Honor. And I can swap with the court 28 these investors, whatever damage was caused 29 Exhibits 10 and 9, the phone records that 29 to Epstein as a result thereof. 20 wore produced to my office by Mr. Scarola. 20 £o that's the clear unadulterated 23 Your Honor, the objection is identical lI ruling of the Court as to that issue. 22 to the last, and that they aro not relevant. 22 MR. SCAROLA: And I understand that, 22 My client's phone records, if chore was any 22 sir. My question to you is, if there is a 24 remote relevance as to who my client may 24 specific allegation in the complaint -- 25 have called on any given day, I don't think 25 THE COURT: That was brought by 82 84 that's going to bo -- I think it's Mr. Epstein. 2 prejudicial. I think there's a clangor or 2 MR. SCAROLA: -- that was brought by 3 prejudicing this jury. Mr. Epstein against Mr. Edwards, does Your 4 I am not quite sure what relevancy Honor's ruling contemplate that we got to Mr. Scarola thinks that phone records have prove that allegation la false? Without 6 to the malicious prosecution action, unless getting into what exhibit we are going to they think we may hoar that there is going use to prove its false, is there any issue 8 to be some attempt to prove the falsity of about the fact that if he alleged it In the 9 scme individual allegation in CO original complaint and it's false, wo got to prove 20 proceeding, which is not what we should be :0 it's false? doing here In this action. THE COURT: There's no issue as far as 22 THE COURT: Thank you. 22 I am concerned. 39 MR. SCAROLA: I am -- I continuo to be 29 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. I think 14 extremely puzzled by that statement, that we 24 that helps a groat deal, because I have been 15 aro not hero to prove the falsity of claims Is hearing something entirely different, 16 in the original complaint. 16 repeatedly from the other side. I didn't 17 I would like some guidance from the 17 understand how they can possibly be making 14 Court. 10 that argument that we 't permitted to 19 THE COURT: No need to puzzled. I 19 prove the falsity of ovary false allegation 20 think I've already made myself abundantly 20 in the complaint. 21 clear. And that is, that the relationship 21 THE COURT: My intone is to hold 22 between the legitimacy of the three claims: 22 Mr. Epstein accountable -- as I try to do 23 M ., R.M. and Jane Dm, aro going to bo 23 each and every day, no matter whether it 24 permitted in a manner that befits the 24 litigant or attorney -- and that is, what 25 dignity of the courtroom, without pejorative 25 they write they aro going to have to stand Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801616 85 87 i behind. And I have got no issues in that I Someone could be conjuring up any 2 respect at all. 2 thought process that they may have to 3 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. That's 3 possibly bring a claim. But it's not until 4 vary helpful. I appreciate that 4 that black and whit* document is served on S clarification. S someone and a filing fee is paid, and the 4 THE COURT: Now, again, the morn fact 4 litigation comnancos -- and as contemplated 7 that Mr. Epstein mentions flight logs in his 7 by the jury instructions and by the law -- 8 complaint does not ipso facto make the 8 continued by the defendant in a malicious 9 entire flight log disclosure relevant to the 4 prosecution claim, the original plaintiff, 10 jury's consideration of the claims. 10 to make this at all real. 11 So I want to temper my broad statement 11 MR. LINK: I think I can answer that 12 by that example as it may constitute 12 question very easily, and here is why -- and 13 examples in other matters that he's claimed. 13 you raise a really good point. 14 But generally, globally, yes. Tho 14 You, Mr. Scarola absolutely gots to 15 accountability issue is still resonating 15 test this. So hero is when is Epstoin's I. with the Court, and will always resonate for Io complaint is filo, Dacenbor 7th, 2009. I am 17 as long as I an doing this. 17 suggesting to you that if you road the 16 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. I do 16 Supreme Court case that just cane out, it 10 appreciate that clarification. I'm sorry to 10 will toll you what happens afterwards is all 20 the extant that any of that may seam to be 20 subject to the litigation privilege. 21 argument after Your Honor has ruled. That II THE COURT: Which Supreme Court case 22 helps no a groat deal. 22 you are talking about? 29 THE COURT: Lot's novo on. 23 MS. ROCKEHBACH: Debrincat. 24 MR. LINK: Your Honor, may I comment on 24 MR. LINK: It's the first thing it 25 that very, very briefly. 25 -- 86 88 1 THE COURT: Sure. Yos, sir. 1 MS. ROCKEHBACH: Under hoadnoto ono. 2 MR. LINK: Wo have hoard the Court 2 MR. LINK: -- that everything that 3 ruled that way and we've accepted that 3 happens after 12/7/09 is protected, it's 4 ruling. We don't agree that that's what the 4 subject to privilege. what the allegations 5 law suggests, but that's the playing field 5 are, the truth or falsity, any statements 0 that you have sot for us. 6 made by the lawyers, any statements made by 7 THE COURT: The playing field being -- 7 the parties or witnesses. 6 and then you don't agree is exactly what, so r THE COURT: Mold on just a moment. 9 that we can maybe clarify whatever your 9 What about, though, extra judicial 10 agreement is so that neither of us or any of 10 statements? Tho Dobrincat case, the Wolfe 11 us aro working under any false pretenses. 11 case, for case that wo had, was confined to 12 MR. LINK: Your Honor, we don't believe 12 issues dealing with the litigation itself. II that truth or falsity of any specific II The concern that Wolfe had was 14 allegation has anything to do with malicious 14 primarily ono of chilling effect on the 15 prosecution. It has everything to do with 25 ability of, in that case, a rather 16 defamation. Hero is why. 15 well-known law firm in Miami and their 17 No believe that malicious prosecution 17 ability to properly litigate their case 10 focuses on the information that you make the 18 without feeling -- fooling feathered by 19 decision to go forward with the lawsuit. 19 that. 20 Did you have enough information that a 20 What transpires outside of the 21 reasonable person would bring this civil 21 litigation aro you suggesting to MO would 22 proceedings. That's what the case law says. 22 not be relevant, moaning publication, things 23 THE COURT: How else is that testing, 23 of that nature, things that this export is 24 Hr. Link, but for the actual allegations 24 going to say in [GYMS of damages caused to 25 that were brought? 2S Edwards as a result of this filing and it's Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801617 89 91 1 continuation. 1 Warner wont out of our -- very kind way -- I 2 MR. LINK: We are on two different 2 am saying that with an abundant amount of 3 points then. i respect. I think she's an exceptional 4 THE COURT: Sorry. I may have 4 appellate judge -- she stated that the trial 5 misunderstood. court correctly followed the Wolfe decision. 6 MR. LINK: You got it, but you aro on Off the record. 7 two different points, so let ma tell you > IA discussion was held off the record.) 6 this. e THE COURT: I do need a break. I hate 9 The extra judicial statements -- and 9 to break you in the middlo of a thought, but 10 it's a great example. Epstein sues for 10 I do have some lunch plans. I want to make 11 abuse of process, RICO, whatever ha sues 11 sure that I respect those. It's about five 12 for. Outside of the courtroom Mr. Epstein 12 or so after noon. Lot's got back, please, 13 stands up and says to a reporter, 13 assembled at 1:20. 14 Mr. Edwards is a thief. T➢ere's no part of 14 What my plan is, I'm going to give you 15 that statement that's connected to the 25 another two hours this afternoon. So we 16 litigation. He doesn't have immunity. 36 will go whenever we start and two hours 27 He makes a statement about the 22 thereafter. IS litigation, and he says, I have alleged le What I would like to do is try to get II Edwards was connected to Rothstein's Ponzi 29 through as much of this as we can. 20 scheme. He says it outside of the 20 My continued suggestion is to work with 21 courtroom. Is that connected to the II each other, if you can, as far as any of 22 litigation? Yes, it is. 22 these exhibits may be concerned. And then 23 So I don't think the law is unclear at 22 what I will do is -- if you aro prepared to 24 all. And I don't think Mr. scarola would 24 do it -- is got into the motion to stay If 25 dispute it if you asked him does the 25 we have time to do that today, okay? 90 92 I litigation privilege protect everything that 1 MR. GOLDBERGER: Judge, I apologia*. 2 happens in a lawsuit through parties, 2 So I'm kind of responsible for the stay 2 witnesses, lawyers and Judges that aro , motion, and I'm juggling a couple of balls 4 connected to the litigation. He would say, 4 right now. I'm not going to be here this 5 in any other circumstance -- he said it in 5 afternoon. I got called up for trial. I 6 this room -- ho said it in this courtroom . have to go prepare for that. 7 two or three times -- all of that Is On a personal level, my son and 8 protected by the litigation privilege. e daughter-in-law their due date is today. I 9 MR. SCAROLA: No. There 1: ono think St's happening so -- 20 exception. And the ono exception is :0 THE COURT: If you would have told no 21 continuing to maintain the lawsuit in the 21 that, I would have ➢een able to hear It 22 a➢sence of probable cause. That's ono 22 before wo did this evidence issue, because I 29 exemption. Everything else is protected by 22 think I mentioned earlier that I was prepare 24 the litigation privilege. The one thing 14 to do this today. 25 that la not, the one exemption carved out of 35 You know, my suggestion is probably 16 the litigation privilege by every Court, up 16 that either Mr. Link or Ms. Rockenbach could 17 until the Third DCA decided otherwise, and 1? argue It in your a➢sence. 10 the Fourth DCA issued its opinion, every 10 I will be glad to take It up the first 19 other court in the nation has said you 19 thing this afternoon, Jack, if it will help 20 cannot maintain a lawsuit in the absence of 20 you. But, you know -- 21 probable cause. You can't file it in the 21 MR. GOLDBERGER: I apologize for not 22 a➢serve of probable cause. 22 telling you ahead of time. 23 THE COURT: You're bringing back bad 23 THE COURT: I understand. You have a 24 memories. If I hoard that once, I heard it 24 lot on your mind and I respect that. But at 25 a thousand times. I think that's why Judge 25 the sane time, I told the parties before, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801618 93 1 you know, I am slammed, and I have to go: 2 this stuff pushed through in the bast way I 3 can describe lt. So I'm going to have to 4 insist that you make yourself available. 5 I will willing to do it, as I said, 6 first thing out of the gate. I don't expect 7 it to take very long. I'm expecting it to 8 be about a 15-minute argument per side. And 9 I will get you out of here, to to best of my 10 ability, by 2:00 in the afternoon, as long 1) as there's no unforeseen circumstance. 12 HR. COLDBERCER: Lot me talk to 13 co-Counsel. 14 MR. SCAROLA: I can do my argument in 15 five minutes on that issue. 10 THE COURT: I don't think it's going to 37 take more than 15 minutes to present, then 28 five on the rebuttal. So I'm telling you 39 right now, wo can' get it done in less than 20 half an hour. I will bo glad to that. I II will give every you every accommodation, as 22 I would with any of you here. I would do 29 the sane thing. 24 But I need to respect the fact that 25 I've put aside this tine, and that I've 94 I prepared in accordance with the information 2 that I received from counsel yesterday in 9 the manner which puts that as the next -- as 4 the nowt viable thing to review and -- I 5 haven't gone through the supplement motions 4 to compel yet. That is what I was planning 7 to do on Thursday. 8 I'm sorry about that. Again, it is 9 with all due respect to your long experience 30 and the fact I think you're an excellent 31 lawyer and a groat person, so it's not 22 personal at all, it's just needing to get 29 this done. 24 Thank you. And thank you all for 35 understanding. I appreciate that. See you 16 back assembled at 1:20. )7 IA recess was had 12:09 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801619 95 A admissible 65:9 68:17 79:24 80:14 applicable 50:12 Associated 71:5 ■ 61:15,15 72:4 80:15,16 81:5 71:25 72:1 associating 8:9 ability 88:15,17 admit 23:14 58:7 84:8 89:18 application 35:23 assume 61:19 64:3 93:10 admitted 59:16,16 allegedly 40:21 35:24 36:3 38:12 assuming 23:16 able 57:3,6 60:4 advertises 37:7 51:11 48:14 52:12 62:19 78:16 92:11 advice 10:5,14 alleges 67:2 applied 5:4 astray 76:12 above-entitled 2:2 affirmative 3:4,17 alleging 27:14 applies 25:7 attached 20:8 absence 6:13 16:12 3:19 7:21 9:5,20 allow 10:10 11:4 apply 13:11 15:7 attacked 27:7 46:8 90:12,20,22 9:25 10:3,7,17,19 28:13 29:8,10 16:20 25:12 26:24 attacking 29:11 92:17 12:16,17 13:25 30:4 52:23 75:8 27:20,24 29:19 attempt 32:10 absolute 37:3 14:4,10,1421:1,4 allowed 8:25 9:2,23 50:15 52:11 51:20 76:13 80:15 absolutely 5:12 9:12 23:10,11,12,19,21 10:12 14:23 27:6 appreciate 30:10 80:16 82:8 35:22 39:16 47:23 23:24 24:2,7,11 allowing 18:23 33:10 39:17 46:22 attempted 70:2 79:1 58:9 60:18 73:21 25:3 27:6,21 28:3 28:22,23 85:4,19 94:15 attempting 27:15 87:14 28:6 29:2 34:3,12 allows 27:4 66:11 appreciated 72:17 32:2 54:4 abundant 91:2 34:23 35:1,11,20 altered 21:12 approach 8:1 62:22 attention 33:10 abundantly 82:20 36:19,20 37:10 amenable 51:3 64:9 81:17 43:12 abuse 11:9 14:11,25 40:17 48:5,7,20 amend 3:4,16 10:12 appropriate 22:13 attorney 19:18,25 65:24 66:16 67:13 49:1,7,11,25 50:7 10:14 11:4 13:21 57:19 21:20 38:9 58:18 75:2 89:11 51:24 52:21 53:1 14:23 20:9 28:10 area 40:2 84:24 abused 13:22 53:2,5,24 56:22 28:22 29:12 32:3 arguable 38:14 Attorney's 75:16 abusive 65:1066:23 75:6 51:21 53:9 54:4 arguably 42:23 attorneys 56:20 accepted 86:3 affirmatively 10:14 56:24 79:16 58:17 80:6 accolades 40:3 18:17 amendable 27:25 argue 29:25 38:1 attributable 51:14 accommodation afforded 38:11 53:22 92:17 augment 60:4 93:21 47:10 61:7 amended 62:23 argued 29:23 authority 8:23 account 35:6 afield 79:23 amending 27:4 arguing 12:8 32:4 authorized 29:21 accountability afternoon 55:16,18 amendment 12:24 45:20 57:5 30:7 85:15 55:22 91:15 92:5 13:23 27:5 28:1 argument 15:3 automatic 56:16 accountable 84:22 92:19 93:10 28:13 29:6,8 24:22 31:2,8 35:7 57:2 accurate 3:5 age 77:24 48:24 52:23 53:3 36:18 47:2 49:22 available 7:5 93:4 acknowledge 33:5 agree 33:5 57:13 54:13 55:9 55:18 66:10 84:18 avoid 17:3 50:14 act 6:9 15:15 26:6 86:4,8 amendments 27:3 85:21 93:8,14 avoidance 49:24 36:13,14 agreeing 50:18 27:10,18 30:4 arguments 27:9 52:7,24 54:3 action 5:5,6 6:1 7:3 agreement 48:12 49:14 52:13 46:24 60:8,9,11 avoided 33:3 7:14 8:16 9:13,14 51:25 76:2 86:10 amount 44:22 59:6 arose 17:15 award 25:2 44:21 9:15 10:8 11:18 agrees 2:6 91:2 article 49:15 52:14 aware 58:19 11:22 17:2 23:3 ahead 3:13 92:22 analogize 27:12 71:5 76:6 airplane 65:18,19 analogy 27:19 aside 16:22 93:25 B 27:12,16 29:20 30:6 34:14 73:3 66:1 78:22 analysis 9:9,10 asked 11:3 34:17 B 62:3 73:22 75:3,4,14 airplanes 72:8 29:16 38:3 51:1 40:17,18 53:20 back 3:2 11:25 15:2 82:6,11 albeit 27:20 77:25 announced 83:9 54:13 70:17,21,24 32:3 55:24 56:12 actions 38:21 50:15 align 80:15 answer 3:4 10:2 89:25 61:13 72:20 74:12 activities 8:10 20:6 allegation 6:16 56:24 79:6 80:24 aspect 30:23 31:1 90:23 91:12 94:16 69:25 41:19 42:8 68:8 87:11 34:4 43:8,9 backup 55:4 acts 81:1,2 82:9 83:24 84:5 answered 38:13 aspects 77:5 80:12 had 90:23 actual 5:15 81:3 84:19 86:14 answers 41:24 55:6 assault 77:25 81:5 bait 76:9 86:24 allegations 3:24 4:5 anti-trust 13:7 36:9 assaulted 71:21 balanced 18:22 add 24:12 30:12,18 5:9 6:23 7:19,22 36:10,15 48:17 assaults 69:4 71.7 halls 92:3 additional 21:1 8:14 9:2,24 16:15 53:11 71:18 79:13 bar 15:15,18 48:9 Additionally 49:12 17:15 23:15 31:10 Anybody 54:8 assembled 91:13 barred 27:17 50:11 address 55:8 57:4 31:18,21,22 37:4 anymore 48:14 94:16 based 7:4,15,22 addressed 13:15,16 43:16 47:6,23 apologize 92:1,21 assert 40:8 11:9 14:24,25 13:17,19 19:11 67:15,17,18 71:17 apparent 59:14 asserted 28:7 34:23 17:2 21:2 26:18 28:24 49:10 53:4 71:18 73:1 74:2 appearance 2:23 assertion 24:25 28:1 41:20 45:14 addresses 50:8 77:3 86:24 88:4 appellate 59:22 39:16 66:22 67:12 72:18 78:7 adequately 44:24 allege 12:16 27:15 61:2 91:4 assertions 55:9 baseless 12:21 21:3 Adler 65:5 alleged 16:24 34:8 apples 79:21 asserts 21:5 bases 64:25 64:25 65:10 67:14 applicability 51:17 assignment 8:5 basic 38:13 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801620 96 basing 62:20 built-in 52:2,17 cause 6:7,12,14 9:22 25:25 26:2 32:6 commencement 6:1 basis 21:13 30:7 bulk 35:11 16:13 17:2 22:23 32:24 34:1,4,13 7:11.16 37:2 64:14 65:8 burden 20:25 21:7 23:3 25:17 26:10 34:25 35:14,16 commences 87:6 71:24 72:1079:15 burdens 21:10 27:12,15 29:20 48:14,15 50:9,20 comment 85:24 befits 82:24 Burlington 12:9,10 30:6 31:12,17,20 50:21 66:5 71:9 commentary 83:1 beginning 45:11 12:11 18:18 20:18 34:10 40:23 41:5 80:5,13 81:4,4 commission 66:13 behalf 3:15 12:8 20:20 28:5 30:9 41:20 42:15 43:5 87:3,9 commit 7:2,3 27:9 33:12 73:13 33:22 35:8 40:14 43:10 45:8,11,21 claimed 69:1 85:13 committed 37:19 80:11 40:18 41:23 51:9 46:2,3,6,8,11,13 claiming 48:21 common 37:16 belief 68:25 72:10 56:18,21,25 61:5 67:11 74:20 claims 16:16,21 commonly 79:9 beliefs 70:23 Burlington's 47:2 80:3 90:12,21,22 17:19 19:7,12 community 20:7 believe 4:4 11:5 business 17:7 78:4 caused 8:15 26:12 24:2,6 29:22 companies 69:11 23:9 25:10 26:17 businesses 59:7 44:1045:1,15 32:11,16,21 35:2 compel 94:6 29:21 30:4,6 46:5 83:18 88:24 35:18 49:20,22 compensate 44:24 31:24 36:25 41:3 C causing 7:15 50:10,11,1251:10 compensatory 45:22 56:19 65:12 calculated 70:3 72:3 caveat 61:1 53:13 54:22 71:13 26:12 86:12,17 call 41:14 celebrities 69:7 70:3 72:12 77:25 80:7 complained 45:4 believed 22:6 called 17:1 18:18 71:6 76:25 80:10,14 82:15,22 complaint 3:25 4:5 best 56:6 93:2,9 81:25 92:5 center 80:9,12 85:10 5:9 6:6,25 7:2,19 better 8:23 55:24 can' 93:19 certainly 14:21 clarification 85:5,19 7:22 8:15,20 9:3 beyond 39:10,12 carefully 43:1 29:24 35:15 51:2 clarify 86:9 9:24 10:11 25:9 big 42:9 caned 90:15 51:7 56:3 58:19 clarity 5:19 26:531:11,12,17 Bill 76:5 case 2:8 3:22 4:8,8 certificate 2:23 clear 3:23 4:9 5:1 31:18 37:4 40:22 hit 30:13 67:25 4:25 8:24 11:12 certification 2:24 16:1 19:1821:20 41:19 42:8,24 black 45:19 87:4 12:1,4,20 13:2,4,5 certified 2:13,20 25:3 49:18 82:21 43:16 44:2 47:7 blueprint 73:6 13:12 14:3 15:3,8 18:2 83:20 47:21 67:15,16,20 blur 51:4 16:9 17:13,14,15 challenge 24:8 clearly 4:2 11:19 68:8,19 71:17 board 22:4.5 18:4,6,7,14,15,18 challenges 24:10 12:21 15:9,21 72:10 73:25 82:16 boiling 35:8 19:4,17,20 20:3 challenging 28:8 19:8 30:5 33:23 83:24 84:9,20 bold 45:18 20:23 21:11,12,18 chance 56:5 36:16 72:5 75:5 85:8 87:16 bolster 70:4 21:19 22:2,3,3,20 change 26:16 60:5 client 15:1 19:19,25 complete 74:24 bona 17:24 23:1,1,3,18 24:19 61:5 21:21 26:8 27:10 completely 14:13 bootstrap 20:1 25:14,16 26:14 changed 45:23 37:14 38:10,20 36:3 49:8 53:12 bottom 5:20 68:5 27:13 28:18 29:1 changing 21:9 39:5,13,21 73:2 64:21 75:9 Brad 12:12 20:9,12 29:12 35:23 37:10 characterizing 74:9,17,19,21 comprehend 31:8 Bradley 32:6 46:5 40:25 41:1,2,7,16 50:16 75:11 76:6 81:24 computer-generat... 65:1,3,11,15 41:24 42:5 43:18 charges 32:7 client's 64:16,20 2:14 66:25 67:3,11 43:19 47:5 48:9 checked 2:12 73:25 76:19 77:1 concede 57:24 69:18 71:23 72:11 48:17,18 49:3,10 child 11:15 66:13 81:23 conceded 25:19 branch 22:10,10 52:11,16 53:14 66:14 clients 20:16 37:15 54:1 76:18 83:4 branches 13:9 58:22 64:18 66:12 children 66:2,6,16 64:20 65:21 70:20 concedes 75:20 break 54:8 61:10 73:6,7,15 74:11 66:19 71:2078:21 71:9,14 76:15 76:16 91:8,9 75:2,4,9 77:14,21 79:13 77:7 80:11 conceding 33:1,1 bridge 44:17 79:24 81:9 83:17 chilling 88:14 closely 33:20 conceivable 83:7 brief 24:17 51:9 86:22 87:18,21 circumstance 90:5 co-Counsel 93:13 conceivably 35:17 briefly 78:13 85:25 88:10,11,11,15,17 93:11 code 2:15 conceive 35:25 bring 9:23 11:18 cases 13:7,8 16:25 citation 2:10 colorable 24:22 concern 14:22 21:6 17:18 18:2341:11 17:10 18:8,16 cite 4:22 18:16 combinations 2:17 21:14.17 22:1,13 42:23 86:21 87:3 20:13 23:6 25:13 21:11 come 11:25 24:21 88:13 bringing 33:10 26:20 27:4 28:16 cited 5:25 13:2 I8:4 29:6 37:9 43:6 concerned 34:15 90:23 34:9,20 36:7 18:15 19:4 20:23 44:17 61:13 48:7 51:25 52:8 broad 85:11 39:11 40:19,20 23:5 26:14 28:17 comes 6:3 17:11 77:21 84:12 91:22 broadly 49:4 41:18,18 53:11 28:18 29:1 59:4 43:11 56:7 60:3 conclude 43:12 brought 23:4 27:12 58:25 71:1,2 civil 5:21 16:7 19:22 79:1 concluded 14:14 36:1 48:16 51:15 72:22 75:1 76:8 42:3,7,20 54:21 comfort 60:23 65:1 52:17 76:4 80:10 76:10 77:20 80:17 75:14 81:4 86:21 comfortable 59:12 concludes 25:10 83:25 84:2 86:25 80:25 81:2 83:12 claim 6:15,24 7:5,22 coming 43:4 59:5 conclusion 15:10 built 22:22 52:19 83:17 12:14 15:12,16 commenced 16:9 66:25 54:1 categorical 15:22 16:4,23 20:9 25:8 42:22 74:10 concurring 22:20 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801621 97 condemnation continues 68:4 49:2 50:5,17 51:2 52:5,16 53:19 defense 10:6 12:16 77:19 continuing 90:11 51:7 52:8,25 53:4 88:24 12:17,19 21:4 conduct 21:16 contradicts 72:9 53:16,20 54:10,24 danger 80:23 82:2 23:12,16,19,21 33:17 67:12 70:11 contrary 18:15 50:2 55:13,18 56:3 data 69:21 24:1,2,7,11 25:4 71:24 79:15 80:18 53:7 57:12 58:14 60:1 date 92:8 28:3 34:3,13 confession 49:23 Contrast 44:12 60:24 61:6,12,18 Daubert 58:23,25 35:21 36:19,20 52:7,24 54:2 contro125:18,20 61:23 62:14,25 59:1 37:10 43:4 48:7 confined 88:11 convert 18:5 19:2 63:5,8,15,19,24 daughter-in-law 48:21 49:2,7,11 confirm 60:5 19:23,24 21:23 64:2,5,23 66:11 92:8 49:25 50:7 51:19 confirmed 78:20 converted 20:7 67:18,22,24 68:12 day 46:15,16 81:25 51:24 52:21 53:24 confirming 54:5 convicted 17:21 68:22 69:13,19 84:23 56:23 57:15 67:5 confusing 31:2 37:20 70:12 72:13,16,25DCA 5:24 90:17,18 68:2 75:6 80:4 conjuring 87:1 convincing 49:18 73:8 74:19,24 dead 15:5 16:2 83:9 connected 89:15,19 copies 68:2 69:5 75:3 77:2,9,17 deal 35:12 84:14 defenses 3:5,17,20 89:21 90:4 copy 62:17,22 78:13,23 79:7,19 85:22 7:21 9:6,20 10:1,3 connection 2:8 correct 4:20 28:5 80:22 81:12,18 dealing 4:8 10:20 10:7,17,19 13:3 37:24 68:17 32:17 59:18 61:22 82:12,18,19 83:21 54:12 59:24 88:12 13:13,25 14:4,11 consent 77:24 62:6 83:25 84:11,21 deals 36:20 14:15 17:4 18:7 conserving 57:3 corrected 2:13 85:6,16,23 86:1,2Debrincat 4:18 8:23 19:8 21:1 23:7,10 consider 44:20 Corrections 2:19 86:7,23 87:18,21 9:8 15:3,4 16:5,17 23:11,24 26:3 consideration 85:10 correctly 91:5 87:21 88:8 89:4 16:22 18:21 25:5 27:6,22 28:6,15 considerations counsel 9:11 10:5 90:16,19,23 91:5 25:10,16,18,21 29:2 34:23 35:1 13:15 10:15 53:17 55:1 91:8 92:10,23 26:15,20 73:6,7 35:11 40:17 48:5 considering 12:25 57:11 60:13 70:13 93:16 73:18 87:23 88:10 50:8,12,13,14 consistent 61:1 94:2 Court's 51:21 54:6 December 2:2 87:16 53:1.2,5 conspiracy 17:18 count 11:8 19:3 78:6,15 79:22 decide 41:13 74:7 define 18:20 constitute 34:12 20:25 42:8 courtroom 77:20 decided 90:17 defined 43:1 69:18 49:25 51:16 52:7 counter 14:17 82:25 89:12,21 deciphered 2:18 83:15 53:2 85:12 counter-plaintiff 90:6 decision 16:18 defrauded 69:1I constituted 28:2 3:22 36:2 courts 15:14 59:22 36:24 37:17 41:11 delight 61:3 constitution 49:15 counts 18:1,2 61:3 41:14 47:12,19 delivered 2:3 49:16 52:13,15 couple 30:14,22 create 25:21 39:2 50:4,6 53:10 60:5 demonstrate 8:14 constitutional 10:19 33:8 40:13 58:14 75:24 60:6,19 61:6 31:19 40:23 24:8,10 52:19 92:3 created 17:18 86:19 91:5 denial 14:19 49:23 constructively course 9:16 43:11 creativity 35:5 decisional 52:18 56:23 77:23 73:23 Crime 75:3 deeper 19:6 deny 13:21 26:18 construed 35:17 court 2:4 3:1,7,12 crimes 37:20 defamation 3:20 7:3 76:17 51:5 4:7,8,9,13,14,15 criminal 5:21 6:3,4 8:16 9:6,14 10:17 denying 75:6 contacting 39:24 4:17,18,21,22,25 6:6 16:7 21:16,19 10:23 12:18 16:23 depends 45:5 contain 2:14 5:2,7,13,14,17,19 42:20 81:3 17:4 18:1,3,7,8 deposed 70:13,16 containing 69:6 5:23 6:9 7:1,9,9 critical 13:14 19:3,7,7 20:24 deposition 7:25 8:1 contains 2:22 7:24 8:22 10:9,9 crystal 19:17 22:17 23:20 25:25 18:9 43:17 51:1 contemplate 84:4 10:13,18,25 11:3 26:2 34:24 35:2 67:3,21 68:15 contemplated 87:6 11:8,19 12:7,11 D 35:12,14,16,18 70:15 75:21 83:10 contend 46:1 12:21 14:6 15:11 D-E-B-R-I-N-C-... 44:12 50:9,11,12 depositions 66:21 content 2:20 15:17 16:19 18:16 4:19 50:15,20,21 51:6 70:2 71:1 contested 60:3 18:19 20:1,17,19 D3 69:5,9 51:18,23 53:14 deprived 24:15 context 3:18 22:12 22:11 23:13 24:4 damage 19:2 24:6 75:4,7 86:16 describe 93:3 23:2 24:5,14 25:2 24:9 25:15 26:25 25:2 34:13 42:10 defamatory 9:15 designated 68:2 56:8 60:10,18 29:7,9 30:9,14,17 43:25 44:10,25 17:3 22:16 37:1 designed 11:4 18:21 61:5 78:25 30:24 31:6 32:11 46:5 83:18 73:22 despite 19:19 continuation 45:3 32:14,17,20 33:7 damages 8:16 18:11 defaming 8:6,7,11 detail 50:25 53:6 45:17,21 46:4,14 33:19,23 37:11 18:12 23:18 24:14 8:15,209:1 12:4 determination 15:6 55:19 89:1 38:6,17 39:17 26:13 34:2,6,11 defend 10:14 26:8 42:17 57:19 58:6 continue 42:25 43:7 40:1041:8,24 34:15,18 37:2 32:5 74:15 46:3,12 82:13 42:1,5,19 43:2,2 40:24 41:6,7,22 defendant 7:11 determine 6:22 continued 16:9,10 44:16 45:17,24 44:7,15,18,20 23:14 32:23 42:14 74:19 42:22 43:3 46:8 46:18,23 47:4,9 45:21 47:7,8 44:19 87:8 difference 29:17 46:17 87:8 91:20 47:24 48:1,2,6,11 49:18 51:10,16 defending 10:8 38:18 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801622 98 differences 2:20 E eliminated 46:15 85:12 89:10 89:9 different 26:5 29:4 E.W 70:18 82:23 Elmo 72:15 examples 39:4 extremely 26:15 29:4,5 44:14 earlier 50:2 59:20 emotional 17:6 62:11 85:13 31:2 82:14 47:15 84:15 89:2 66:10 78:25 92:13 emphasize 81:7 excellent 94:10 89:7 emphasized 33:23 excepted 73:21 F easily 87:12 difficult 68:1 easy 39:4 engage 12:23 exception 4:10,11 fabricate 75:22,24 digest 60:9 Edward's 11:8 engaged 65:11 90:10,10 fabricated 32:7,11 dignitaries 69:7 50:22 56:2 engages 20:5 exceptional 91:3 32:14.15,21 dignity 82:25 Edwards 1:5 8:9 enquote 71:12 excerpts 67:7 fabricating 72:11 directed 68:22 12:9,12 19:12 ensuring 58:20 excuse 19:10 20:18 face 33:4 directly 48:19 50:3 20:10,12 31:9 entire 73:10 85:9 39:14 66:9 facially 25:8 72:9 81:10 32:6,12,15,22 entirely 25:21 26:5 executive 13:9 fact 8:21 18:21 19:1 disagree 60:7 33:13 34:5,19 26:1649:8 53:12 22:10 36:11 37:5 38:8,9 disallowing 59:1 37:5,22 38:2,24 84:15 exemplars 63:9 38:19,23 40:5 DISCLAIMER 1:2 39:10 46:6 49:5 Epstein 1:3 11:14 exempted 9:12,18 41:4 67:2 74:11 disclose 2:6 49:17,20 50:19 20:22 24:15,25 exemption 47:11 74:14 77:12,18 disclosure 85:9 51:12 52:1 53:18 25:17,19 32:8,13 90:13,15 78:19 79:14 84:8 discovered 69:2 54:6,23 64:19 32:16,21,24 34:10 exercise 29:7 85:6 93:24 94:10 discovery 14:13,16 65:1,4,11,15 37:25 38:1 39:5 exercising 34:11 facto 85:8 65:3,8,11,17 66:25 67:4 68:16 40:6 45:12 49:19 exhibit 56:1,2 57:10 factor 80:16 66:24 67:12,13 69:18 70:10,B,16 50:4 51:14 52:4 57:21 60:3 62:2,9 factoring 34:20 70:11 71:25 72:3 70:17,21 71:24 64:25 66:3,23 62:13,23 63:21,22 80:18 77:5,15 78:5,17 72:11 75:17,19,23 69:22 71:19 72:7 64:13 73:10 84:6 facts 27:24 28:1 79:16 75:25 76:10,16,16 73:14 76:9 80:5 exhibits 57:15 58:11 29:16,1841:10 discretion 29:7 76:18 77:13 78:3 83:1,4,19 84:1,3 59:13,15,25 60:12 74:8,16,18,21 discuss 56:13 78:16 79:14 80:11 84:22 85:7 89:10 62:5,15 63:12 75:10,13 76:1,2 discussed 29:12 83:15 84:3 88:25 89:12 73:11,16 76:21 factual 4:4 6:23 41:18 74:12 78:24 89:14,19 Epstein's 21:16 81:19 91:22 14:15 16:14 19:15 discussion 41:6 Edwards' 7:25 24:5 33:17 34:17 exist 58:7 76:1 21:9 29:15 31:18 62:20 91:7 33:15 48:12 50:10 56:23 60:13 61:20 existed 46:7 74:9,18 31:21,22 dismisses 11:8 53:16 62:8 67:11 62:23 64:8 69:3 76:3 failed 34:5 79:17 dispute 41:9 74:16 77:6 80:1,17 70:14,20 71:7,9 existence 74:17 fairly 44:24 89:25 Edwards's 73:13 76:8 81:15 83:9 75:12 faith 31:25 77:5,13 disregard 49:21 effect 52:10 88:14 87:15 existing 27:17 52:20 78:5 79:15 dissemination 8:6 efficient 58:21 errors 2:16 71:13 falls 10:25 49:11 dissolving 75:17 effort 27:21 66:24 especially 28:11 exists 33:5 false 4:6 16:15 distance 17:12 70:3 espoused 50:3 expanded 65:6 18:12 31:22 32:7 distinction 34:21 efforts 13:8 Esquire 2:5 expect 93:6 32:11,14,15,21 39:20 40:4,9 eight 14:4,9 essence 35:9 expecting 93:7 40:21,21 44:10,11 51:22 eighth 23:10,19 essential 35:7 expeditious 60:16 44:14 51:11 67:16 distress 17:6 50:7 essentially 17:17 expend 26:8 73:2 74:3 84:5,7,9 district 15:14 17:13 either 20:25 21:23 23:14 27:11 37:12 experience 94:9 84:10,19 86:11 17:23 23:2 25:23 27:25 59:24 expert 7:25 8:4,14 falsity 9:4,25 10:11 division 5:24 41:20 48:19 53:6 establish 41:22 53:8 8:19,25 18:11 26:4,9 31:10 document 63:4 87:4 60:4 67:22 77:19 established 24:19 88:23 41:21 47:2249:19 Doe 70:18 82:23 77:23 81:9 92:16 26:23 52:3 expert's 33:12 49:21 82:8,15 doing 7:20 36:4 elaborate 83:13 estate 17:17 50:25 84:19 86:13 88:5 39:23 65:13 66:18 electronic 2:7,15 eve 14:12 experts 14:17 19:16 familiar 4:23 82:11 85:17 element 6:13 15:19 evidence 39:15 explain 26:25 65:16 familiarize 56:8 door 11:23 16:6 25:7 26:11 44:23 45:1 49:19 78:17 families 59:8 Dr 8:2 33:25 34:15 42:2 52:10 58:5 65:9 explained 12:18 family 17:15,16,20 draft 2:13 42:3,6,16,17 66:12,15 67:6,9 explanation 14:9 17:20 draw 40:9 elements 5:4,13,14 72:4,7 79:12 26:19 famous 69:23 71:6 drams 47:16 5:17,18 8:17 12:3 92:12 exploitation 79:24 fantasy 75:24 dream 14:10 15:21 16:11 18:20 evidentiary 56:12 expressed 14:22 far 13:6 24:13 38:1 due 24:5,15,20 25:1 19:2 25:22 26:1 exactly 45:14 58:12 expressly 66:11 48:6 49:1 51:24 52:15,17 92:8 43:21,22 86:8 77:17 79:11 52:7 68:14 76:12 94:9 eliminate 17:25 example 11:7,14 extent 83:10 85:20 77:20 79:23 84:11 19:10 34:3 59:2 extra 62:16 88:9 91:21 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801623 99 fashion 28:7 60:16 16:19 18:19 22:3 54:3 government 10:21 12:6 14:22 26:18 favor 17:24 22:11 23:12 25:15 futility 14:21 27:1 12:15,23 13:10 30:20 31:4 33:4,6 feathered 88:18 25:22 37:1841:18 28:18 29:3 53:4 35:22 36:6,13 33:18 38:5,16 federal 58:22 66:5,8 49:16,24 52:3,14 48:10,18,22 39:14 40:9,17 66:8 72:1 75:3 52:20 58:24 72:1 government's 36:12 41:1,3,1242:1 79:10 79:8 game 21:8 28:12 great 40:18 84:14 43:14 44:8 45:11 fee 87:5 Florida's 27:2 44:3 gate 93:6 85:22 89:10 94:11 45:25 46:9 47:5 feel 31:6 47:3 flown 71:7 genera149:5 51:18 greater 44:23,25 47:25 54:10,11,13 feeling 88:18,18 fluid 59:23 generally 21:5 grossly 79:17 55:4,6,11 57:1,18 fide 17:24 focus 7:17 9:21 12:2 48:21 85:14 grounds 13:21 57:22 58:3 61:9 field 80:3 86:5,7 32:8 33:9 42:1 generic 24:24 48:15 48:25 61:17 62:21 63:6 fifth 12:17 19:10,11 45:5 74:25 51:18 guaranteeing 52:15 63:17 64:1,6,9,24 36:19 48:4,6 focused 7:6 45:7 generically 81:15 guess 29:15 67:8,21 68:1,10 52:12 54:13 55:9 focuses 42:3 45:15 Gertz 19:17 21:18 guidance 82:17 69:15 70:9 71:16 fighting 17:17 80:6 86:18 21:19 36:24 37:11 guiding 73:8 72:14 73:19 74:7 figure 19:13,23 20:7 focusing 6:22 54:21 38:7,9 49:3 50:1,4 74:12,14 75:5 20:10 21:2436:21 65:7 53:10 H 76:21 78:12 81:18 37:6 38:2,2 I folks 38:25 59:4 getting 20:16 58:12 half 93:20 81:21 85:21,24 39:22 40:7 49:6 followed 91:5 79:23 84:6 handed 4:1 47:4 86:12 figures 69:8 following 2:1 gin 83:16 handling 35:2 Honor's 54:20 84:4 file 10:21 31:12,17 force 15:21 ginning 80:14 happened 24:13 hope 13:17 31:20 46:12 47:16 forcing 25:24 26:7 give 5:19 11:6 30:14 happening 92:9 hour 93:20 87:16 90:21 forfeiture 75:14 39:8 46:18,21 happens 87:19 88:3 hours 70:16 91:15 filed 42:10 46:14 forget 60:10,10 58:3 64:9 91:14 90:2 91:16 47:18 55:15 62:12 form 2:7 93:21 happy 55:16 63:3 73:2 75:11 formatting 2:21 given 27:13 81:25 harassing 22:8 I 75:13,15 former 79:5 gives 15:4 harm 26:12 i.e 80:5 filing 6:6 7:10 34:18 Fort 76:5 giving 39:24,25 hate 91:8 idea 23:7 31:15 42:11 44:2 45:8.9 forth 5:17 17:8 41:7 glad 3:7 92:18 headnote 88:1 identical 32:1 81:21 45:16 87:5 88:25 50:13 68:15 93:20 bear 72:24 82:7 identified 58:11 filling 5:25 forum 22:9,14 global 59:18 9211 62:6,11 63:13 fmd 44:13,19,21 48:10,22 78:1 globally 85:14 beard 12:13 33:11 66:19,20 67:4 52:1 60:16 81:3 go 3:12 8:2419:6 46:24 59:2 76:17 identifies 57:15 finding 53:6 forward 8:24 11:12 28:21 48:3 55:17 81:6 86:2 90:24 identify 54:15,17 fmds 48:6 49:2 56:10 81:13 86:19 56:4,12 57:21 90:24 ignored 83:8 52:25 found 31:2 50:2,6 58:10 60:13,14,22 bearing 4:1 6:18 illegal 8:9 fore 51:4 53:11 73:11,16 86:19 7:24 30:3 39:6 illicit 69:25 firm 20:12 65:5 four 8:3.8 91:16 92:6 55:20 57:13 62:18 image 39:2 75:17,18 88:16 Fourteenth 49:14 goes 6:25 26:9,10 72:20 84:15 immunity 38:11 first 6:21 12:24 5"):1") 39:12 heinous 37:19 89:16 13:18 15:19 16:6 fourth 5:2417:13 going 8:25 9:2,23 held 15:1122:11 importance 34:21 27:20 33:9 42:2 17:23 70:15 90:18 10:10 11:12 12:8 75:17 91:7 important 43:21 49:14 87:24 92:18 frankly 11:5 31:14 20:4 33:21 37:1 help 32:18 92:19 73:19 93:6 35:2 43:15 44:16 46:20 helpful 85:4 importantly 7:13 Fischer 4:19 free 30:19 31:6 47:3 48:3 53:18 56:9 helps 84:14 85:22 77:” fit 35:9 Friday 7:24 56:10 57:9,23 herring 74:24 impression 33:24 five 8:3 14:3 61:13 Fridovich 17:12 58:1,23 59:12 high-profile 19:20 51:8 91:11 93:15,18 18:3 62:19 64:3 72:25 37:14,15 38:10,19 improper 53:2 flew7I:9 front 12:4 59:10 73:9 74:2 77:22 38:25 39:5,21 inability 31:7 flight 64:8,16,21 fruition 60:3 78:16 82:1,7,23 69:2 71:22 inaccurate 2:16 65:18,25 66:18,19 full 69:23 84:6,25 88:24 higher 20:25 21:6 inadequate 24:23 69:6,21 71:10 fully 29:21 91:14 92:4 93:3 hold 20:4 84:21 inapplicable 48:24 72:5 74:22,23 fundamental 38:13 93:16 88:8 49:9 75:8 76:11,24 funds 26:8 GOLDBERGER holding 15:18 inappropriately 77:4,8,14 78:4,5 further 14:16 36:18 92:1,21 93:12 hole 35:10 70:1 78:18,19 80:23 78:24 good 3:1,14 31:25 homework 43:6 include 16:11,12 85:7,9 futile 14:1 27:11,18 58:17 72:20 77:5 Honor 3:14,18 4:16 65:6 flights 69:22 70:19 28:4,20 29:10,14 77:13 78:5 79:15 4:20 5:16 6:21 8:3 included 67:16 72:9 Florida 4:21 15:17 48:25 51:21 53:8 87:13 9:8 10:3 11:2,25 including 19:20 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801624 100 66:1,16 69:18 79:11 jurisdiction 13:2 47:16,18 76:4,14 list 56:2 57:10 62:9 83:14.15 invalid 16:16 19:8 18:5 20:24 21:11 86:19 90:2,11,20 62:13,14,23 63:21 incriminator 79:22 28:15,1929:9 jury 12:5 44:3,6 lawsuits 8:11 73:12 63:22,23 65:25 independent 74:1 inverting 21:15 51:15 54:16,19 73:13,17 75:19 73:10 78:20 investigation 6:6 67:6 79:3,13 80:2 lawyer 37:13,13 listed 57:21 62:12 index 2:23 investigators 69:1 81:11 82:3 87:7 43:4,18 94:11 63:6 81:15 indicate 55:14 71:4 jury's 41:14 58:20 lawyers 5:11 39:8 lists 63:11 60:19 investing 69:10 85:10 88:6 90:3 litigant 15:12 47:11 indicated 59:21 investment 71:11 Justice 22:19 lays 5:13,14 84:24 73:5 77:17 investors 76:8 83:18 justifies 12:14 lead 65:8 72:3 litigate 26:8 88:17 indication 58:4 involved 21:14 83:6 justify 14:19 29:3 leading 70:22 litigation 4:11 5:3 indirectly 48:19 involvement 19:19 learned 45:12 6:10 9:4 11:9 81:10 19:21 20:6 48:19 K leave 3:16 56:21 12:22 14:5 15:6 individual 18:24 involving 13:8 Kalina 22:20 left 55:25 62:1,8 15:11,15 21:3 21:2 82:9 66:12 Kara 2:4 legal 15:2 16:15 25:6,11 37:3 individuals 68:18 ipso 85:8 keep 43:14 23:22,25 27:16 42:12 47:10 69:16 69:3,23 71:22 irrelevant 64:22 key 9:13 40:16 28:8,24 30:1 69:17,20 70:1 inflame 80:2 81:11 70:22 75:10 76:11 kind 91:1 92:2 35:18 42:14 51:20 71:10 83:14 87:6 inflammatory 70:2 I 76:22 78:7 knew 49:19 64:19 legally 14:1 28:19 87:20 88:12,21 inflate 83:16 irrespective 33:22 71:19,20,21 72:8 29:8 51:22 89:16,18,22 90:1 inflection 17:6 issue 3:3 6:22 27:1 73:2 legislative 13:9 90:4,8,14,16 information 55:4 32:25 33:4 38:6 know 33:20 50:5 legitimacy 82:22 little 19:6 30:12 66:22 68:25 78:20 38:13 48:20 49:3 56:6,14 58:1,17 Let's 56:12 63:24 60:15 67:25 86:18,20 94:1 56:11,16,23 57:2 58:23 60:23 65:22 85:23 91:12 lobby 13:8 inherent 18:13 58:25 75:10 77:2 70:8 71:18 80:7 letter 62:3 log 69:6 85:9 initial 34:19 42:24 81:14 83:3,21 92:15,20 93:1 level 8:5 92:7 logs 64:8,16,21 45:8,9 84:7,11 85:15 knowing 28:14 65:1 liability 9:12,18 65:18,25 66:18,19 initially 28:7 92:12 93:15 67:1 69:23 16:5 37:2 73:21 71:11 72:5 74:22 initiate 46:2 issued 25:16 90:18 knowingly 65:13 Liabos 74:11 74:23 75:8 76:11 initiated 46:7 issues 14:15 19:15 69:21 liberality 27:3 76:24 77:4,8,15 initiation 5:15 6:11 21:10 32:1 36:9 known 24:3 light 25:9 36:24 78:4,6,19,20 7:7 16:4 46:4 37:8,8,24 50:21 knows 4:7 54:20 80:23 85:7 injury 6:7 44:25 53:17 54:12 56:13 limine 59:23 61:2 long 9:10 85:17 inquiry 61:17 83:7 85:1 88:12 L 61:21 62:10 63:11 93:7,10 94:9 insist 93:4 Suing 6:5 25:15 .34:20 70:18 63:16 longer 57:7 instance 69:19 82:23 limit 51:3 53:21 look 4:24 6:12 10:2 instances 33:14 lack 22:23 26:10 limitation 10:6 29:22 31:17 42:6 institute 47:13 Jack 92:19 40:23 41:20 67:11 limitations 17:5 43:20,21 44:3,7 institution 45:2,15 Jane 70:18 82:23 language 15:25 limited 23:17 36:21 55:7 67:8 68:19 instructions 44:4,6 Jansen 8:2 large 58:10 49:6 54:15,18 70:9 87:7 Jeffrey 32:7,12,13 late 21:8 28:11 line 2:21 47:16,17 looked 41:1,17 insufficiency 15:2 61:20 64:25 66:3 Lauderdale 76:5 51:5 68:3 looking 72:21 insufficient 14:2 66:23 81:15 law 6:2 7:15 9:10 lines 10:22 looks 68:4 intended 16:1 jet 69:3 16:16 19:9 20:12 link 3:10,14,15 4:20 loss 44:25 intending 67:5 jobs 59:7 24:19 25:22 26:17 4:24 10:16,23 lot 21:22 60:8 73:11 intent 84:21 joining 7:10 26:23 27:24 28:2 11:2 12:7 30:11 92:24 intentional 17:6 judge 3:11 90:25 28:14 29:1,13,19 31:4 33:8,18 lunch 91:10 interest 36:14 91:4 92:1 41:5 49:3,24 52:3 36:25 38:4,15,18 interference 17:7 judges 5:119:11 52:6,17,20,24 39:20 40:12 42:25 M international 66:6 58:16 90:3 53:8,25 58:22,24 45:5,20 46:9,22 maintain 90:11,20 69:7 judicial 5:21 7:11 59:19 66:8 72:1,1 47:448:2 53:17 making 39:25 41:11 interpose 10:20 7:16 9:17,22 16:7 72:19 74:5,14 61:9 63:6,10,25 54:3 84:17 interrupt 80:21 22:10 26:7 28:12 86:5,22 87:7 73:4 83:5 85:24 malice 22:15,24,25 interviews 39:25 35:6 42:4,7,21 88:16 89:23 86:2,12,24 87:11 26:10 43:23 intrastate 66:5 64:15 73:23 79:8 laws 36:10 87:24 88:2 89:2,6 malicious 4:12 5:5,6 introduce 67:5 81:8 88:9 89:9 lawsuit 5:15 6:11 92:16 7:6,14 8:18 10:8 introduced 61:5 juggling 92:3 7:10 9:19 35:24 Link's 31:1 72:18 11:11,18,22 12:3 79:1,2 juncture 53:21 41:11 42:10,11 linked 33:16 51:12 12:19 13:4,11 introduction 66:11 77:10 43:11 46:12,16 linking 50:23 15:7,13,16,19 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801625 101 16:21 17:10,14,25 mine 62:17 negligence 34:14 offered 58:5 pages 64:12 68:7,15 18:6,14,22 19:3 minute 72:15 negligent 79:17 office 64:10 75:16 paid 87:5 21:12 22:18,21 minutes 30:15,22 neighborhood 81:20 papers 83:5 23:6 25:7,12,23 46:18,19 61:13,14 37:22 officer 20:1 paragraph 15:10 26:1,17 30:5 93:15,17 neither 48:13 86:10 official 2:4 20:2 68:9,20,24 69:15 32:23 34:140:19 missed 72:23,23 never 5:6 15: I 1 21:24 paragraphs 74:2 42:2 44:8,18 51:6 mistake 31:25 16:23,24 24:25 offing 67:9 parent 22:4 51:23 64:18 72:21 mistranslation 35:4,4 46:13 oh 26:2 parenthetically 73:3 74:5 75:9 2:15 70:17 73:2 74:4 okay 12:7 63:2 45:3 77:21 80:5,13 misunderstood 89:5 76:17 64:23 68:22 69:13 parse 15:24 25:5,20 82:6 86:14,17 mitigate 34:5 new 14:17 19:14 91:25 74:1 87:8 mix 79:20 25:21 26:20 43:3 omnibus 61:21 parsing 25:22 maliciously 6:24 mixed 41:4 74:13 71:12 62:1063:10,16,18 part 11:16 18:13 managed 57:11 molester 11:15 newspaper 76:6 onboard 69:3,24 31:8 37:17 63:19 Nlancusi 18:19 moment 68:12 88:8 nexus 36:16 once 12:2 42:9 61:8 66:4 67:10 71:2 40:24 41:15 47:5 money 44:22 71:12 nine 62:9 64:7 65:4 83:5 90:24 72:20 77:15 83:12 manifests 69:22 month 14:7 ninth 23:10 48:5 ones 28:17 69:14 89:14 manner 51:18 58:21 morning 3:1,14 51:24 52:21 53:24 80:8 participant 65:2 82:24 94:3 55:15 72:18 73:5 Nodar 22:3 23:1 open 53:16 76:13 67:1 manslaughter 75:5 Noerr 36:8 48:13 opening 11:23 particular 40:2 17:22 motion 3:3,16 13:16 Noerr/Pennington 57:16 56:11 64:13 marketing 70:4 13:21 14:19 20:9 13:7 opinion 4:13,15 7:8 particularly 36:7 material 72:6 26:18 27:7 28:9 non-stenotypists 22:20 38:8 90:18 53:9 79:25 materially 78:9 28:10,21 29:5,12 2:18 opportunity 29:25 parties 4:22 9:11 materials 3:8 46:23 29:23 32:3 55:5 nonsensical 2:17 46:21 60:1,2 54:2 71:3 73:20 matter 1:2 2:2 7:15 61:21 62:6,10,20 noon 91:12 61:11 65:16 88:7 90:2 92:25 16:16 19:921:5 63:7,10,16 91:24 normally 28:6 opposed 49:23 partner 75:18 21:13,16,25 22:13 92:3 note 12:25 opposing 13:24 party 13:22,24 28:14 29:19 32:21 motions 51:3 53:22 noted 19:13 22:19 54:25 57:10 pass 35:18 51:19 44:20 49:2 57:4 55:25 59:2,23 notice 79:8 opposite 36:4 37:12 passed 13:14 74:8 78:5 83:6 61:1 94:5 notoriety 21:15,19 53:7,12 passenger 69:21 84:23 move 28:22 3I:5 November 56:1 oral 30:10 pattern 66:16 matters 23:17 49:9 58:13 81:13 85:23 59:21 63:3 72:19 oranges 79:21 pause 68:9 57:8 65:6 67:10 moving 37:3 74:13 order 25:16 31:16 peg 35:9 80:19 81:9 85:13 Mr-Searola 59:18 number 33:14 54:5 pejorative 82:25 mean 19:1 38:25 multiple 14:14 58:10 62:9 64:7 original 5:21,22 pending 55:24 40:7 63:21 80:21 murder 17:20 numbers 2:21 6:14 7:16 16:7,13 Pennington 36:8 meaning 32:22 38:8 murdered 17:16 numerous 35:3 42:6,15,16,17,20 48:13 77:3 88:22 muster 35:19 51:20 43:23 44:1 63:18 people 14:23 18:23 means 16:14 28:8 0 73:1,25 74:10 71:6 31:15 32:943:3 N oath 75:23 75:12 82:9,16 perceive 79:4 mechanism 26:7 N-O-E-R-R 48:13 objected 64:14 87:9 permits 79:11 member 17:16,20 name 50:22 81:14 outside 37:18 79:2 permitted 82:24 17:21 65:4 names 33:15 69:6 objecting 62:5 79:25 88:20 89:12 84:18 memories 90:24 narrow 4:10 47:11 objection 56:10 89:20 person 36:1 86:21 memos 28:25 nation 90:19 77:11,11 81:21 outweighed 78:9 94:11 mentioned 70:7 nature 18:25 21:2 objections 62:11,13 overexaggerate personal 92:7 94:12 77:4,5 92:13 59:23 83:8 88:23 63:3 83:16 pertains 34:22 mentioning 77:12 necessarily 28:19 obligation 25:13 overwhelming pertinent 35:13 mentions 20:22 necessary 34:15 observation 59:19 58:22,25 petition 10:21 12:15 68:16 85:7 need 3:19 7:17 9:5 obtain 57:22 78:19 36:5 mere 14:5 85:6 9:20,25 19:15 obvious 36:12 P petitioning 12:23 merely 52:6 29:4 36:18 44:16 obviously 16:10 M94:17 35:21 48:10,22 merits 29:22 57:1 59:10 60:17 36:13 57:23 63:4 package 55:2 Phillip 12:11 Miami 88:16 62:17 82:19 91:8 65:15 71:15 83:2 packets 54:25 phone 81:16,19,23 middle 91:9 93:24 occasions 35:3 page 2:21,23,23 82:5 mind 31:4 45:23 needing 94:12 occupants 66:1 5:16,20 6:20 7:8 phrased 51:19 47:18 60:5 92:24 needs 6:21 54:8 occurring 72:8 8:2,7,8 61:20 63:7 pick 55:24 mindful 58:15 56:18 67:8 offense 66:13,14 63:15 68:3,5 picture 42:9 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801626 102 pilot 70:15 71:10 potentially 34:4 42:13 47:10 87:20 18:6,14,22 19:3 purposefully 81:10 pilots 66:21 70:14 77:23 80:17 88:4 90:1,8,14,16 21:12 22:18,21 purposes 2:10 20:16 70:15 precedent 27:17 probable 6:12,14 23:6 25:8,13,23 25:23 53:19 57:3 pilots' 70:23 preceding 15:10 9:22 16:13 22:23 26:1,17 30:6 58:11 65:23 66:7 place 24:4 49:4 precisely 37:12 26:10 31.12,16,20 32:24 34:1 40:20 66:17 70:24 54:16,18 55:24 55:25 40:23 41:5,20 42:3 44:8,18 51:6 pursuant 71:25 69:4,25 70:5 71:8 precluded 76:21 43:5,10 45:8,10 51:23 64:18 72:22 pursue 79:18 71:19 79:22 precludes 16:17 46:1,3,6,8,11,13 73:3 74:5 75:9 pursued 69:21 places 63:14 predicate 23:23 67:11 74:20 90:12 77:21 80:5,13 pushed 93:2 plain 38:7 58:6 90:21,22 82:6 86:15,17 put 3:17 8:13,25 9:2 plaintiff 3:15 16:8 prejudice 13:24 probably 92:15 87:9 24:4 30:2 39:1,3,7 25:24 27:13,14 15:1 78:10 80:24 probative 76:23 prosecutor 17:19 39:23 93:25 36:2 42:22 43:25 prejudicial 76:24 78:8 prostitution 65:23 puts 37:6 94:3 44:21,22 48:16 82:2 problem 57:16 66:7,17 putting 16:22 40:1 50:14 87:9 prejudicing 82:3 61:12 protect 7:21 11:4 puzzled 82:14,19 plaintiffs 34:9 38:23 preliminary 58:4 procedural 61:16 24:4 90:1 54:22 83:2 preparation 2:19 procedures 24:3,23 protected 5:12 6:10 Q plaintiffs' 70:13 prepare 92:6,13 proceed 39:19 48:4 7:2 9:4 11:15 qualified 22:14 plan 4:3,3 8:13 prepared 48:2 54:9 60:12 12:22 25:1 42:12 qualify 22:21 35:15 91:14 55:22 56:4,13 proceeding 5:8,22 47:20,23 88:3 quasi 37:5 38:20 plane 64:20 65:21 57:13,24 91:23 5:22,23 6:14 7:12 90:8,13 39:22 65:23 68:16,18 94:1 7:17 9:17,22 protecting 18:24 question 18:2 30:3 71:7,19,21,23 preparing 22:6 11:16 16:8,13 24:20 36:15 40:18 41.4,24 planes 64:16 70:20 presence 79:2 19:21,22 42:4,7 protection 10:24 60:18 70:17 74:14 71:9 76:19 77:1 present 16:8 42:14 42:15,16,18,21 protections 24:18 74:16 78:11 80:25 planned 46:19 42:21 54:24 55:17 43:7,24 44:145:4 protects 15:12 83:23 87:12 planning 94:6 71:23 93:17 46:2,4,5 73:1,25 prove 16:14 22:23 questions 34:16 plans 6:19,19 91:10 presentation 13:1 74:10 75:12,15 22:24 26:11 31:10 54:15,18 55:6,8 playing 80:3 86:5,7 30:11 47:3 72:18 82:10 31:16,21,23 33:25 55:10 70:22 79:5 plead 42:1147:21 presented 28:11 proceedings 2:1 65:24 66:15 72:25 79:5 pleading 10:12 11:6 54:25 11:14 21:21,22 74:3 82:8,15 84:5 quickly 55:7 60:20 14:18 17:5 23:15 press 37:8,9 39:6,7 24:8 73:23 86:22 84:7,9,19 quite 31:14 35:2 48:8 39:9,24 40:3 71:5 process 11:9 24:5 provide 23:23 52:3 79:16 82:4 pleadings 27:5 presumably 33:16 24:15,20 25:1 provided 55:3 64:10 quote 44:19 48:22 please 12:10 54:6 50:24 52:15,17 58:2 provides 12:15 48:23 50:9 68:24 61:11,1462:17 presume 10:25 67:13 77:15 87:2 proving 23:17 31:11 70:5 71:3,14 68:13 91:12 56:15,20 89:11 public 19:13,22 quoted 76:6 pled 74:4 presumed 22:16 produced 81:20 20:2.7.10 21:6,14 quotes 70:25 plight 77:6 49:17 professional 20:5,14 21:17.24,24,25 plus 5:7 19:15 presumption 22:25 20:15 22:9,13,14 36:21 R point 9:7,7 33:20 pretenses 86:11 promote 39:11 37:6 38:2,20 39:3 radar 37:23 40:14 58:12 59:15 pretrial 60:6 proof 15:18 21:1,7 39:22 40:8 49:6 raise 10:5 14:14,15 60:25 87:13 prevalent 36:17 21:10 publication 17:1,3 18:7 19:14 24:10 pointed 14:8 40:24 previously 19:14 proofread 2:12 26:6 44:9 88:22 26:22 78:11 87:13 41:3 50:18 59:17 65:7 properly 22:6,7 publicity 21:23 34:7 raised 14:3 78:25 primarily 50:1 88:17 published 9:16,19 razorback 76:4 points 40:13 89:3,7 68:23 88:14 propose 55:8 73:22 read 5:24 26:16 policy 27:2 prime 71:11 proposed 28:3 pulls 73:24 33:19 45:14 46:23 Ponzi 65:2,14 67:1 principle 73:8 50:25 57:10 pump 71:12 50:24 56:5,7 89:19 print 45:19 50:23 proposition 18:17 pumping 70:25 69:13 76:7 87:17 portion 2:1 prior 81:1 19:5 23:22 24:1 punctuation 2:21 reading 6:20 27:24 portions 67:3 private 19:18,24 prosecute 17:19 punitive 24:6,14 51:9 68:11 position 25:24 21:20 69:3 prosecuted 6:24 25:2 33:12 41:6 ready 3:10,12 54:9 32:10 36:23 48:12 privilege 4:11 5:4 prosecution 4:12 47:8 49:17 52:5 54:10 49:5 50:3,18 52:1 6:11 9:5 11.10,17 5:5,6 7:6,14 8:18 52:16 reaffirmed 5:7 71:15 12:22 13:22 14:12 10:8 11:12,18,22 purchaser 2:6 real 37:24 87:10 possibly 14:17 69:5 14:25 15:7,12,15 12:3,20 13:4,12 purportedly 69:6 really 5:2,19 7:13 84:17 87:3 16:2,20 22:15,22 15:8,13,16,19 purpose 11:21 49:6 36:18,22 37:17 potential 28:1 77:25 25:6,12 37:4 16:21 17:11,14,25 59:3 72:6 43:21 60:17 72:17 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801627 103 87:13 relationships 17:8 respond 28:23 S seemingly 22:2 realtime 2:22 releases 37:8 39:9 55:12 safeguards 52:4 seen 35:4 41:17 reargue 32:10 relentlessly 69:20 response 13:20 14:8 sampling 64:11 51:1 reason 3:21 10:4 relevance 64:14,17 24:18,24 25:19 saying 20:2 24:9 sees 47:14 29:9 31:23 49:12 71:13 81:24 82:4 28:17 29:24 55:10 25:11,17 26:2 sell 71:2 52:22 56:17 65:12 relevancy 77:7,10 responsibility 20:15 29:18 37:12 52:9 sense 5:3 13:12 65:19 relevant 8:18 22:1 responsible 92:2 72:25 91:2 27:11,16 37:16 reasonable 65:8 72:5 78:2 80:13 restrictions 50:17 says 6:13 7:13 13:3 46:10 58:1 71:24 86:21 81:22 85:9 88:22 result 18:12 20:25 16:6 18:5,21 sentence 9:9 37:21 reasonably 72:2 reliance 18:9 33:16 34:18 38:22 20:24 21:12 23:20 separate 63:4 74:9 relied 2:10 26:14 44:1 83:19 88:25 41:15 43:2 44:13 serial 11:15 reasons 14:18 59:15 41:10 74:9,17,22 resulting 2:16,20 68:23,24 74:5 serve 80:2 rebut 47:1 75: I 1 76:7 results 8:10 86:22 87:25 89:13 served 87:4 rebuts 66:22 relies 50:1 Résumé 20:17,19 89:18,20 serving 37:21 rebuttal 13:18 reluctantly 59:6 revealed 33:13 Scalia 22:19 set 19:15 50:13 93:18 rely 22:2 23:22 49:7 review 55:17 94:4 scam 70:4 68:14 86:6 recall 69:17 relying 74:23 reviewed 3:8 Scarola 3:6 4:1 6:17 sets 5:1741:7 received 55:21 94:2 remain 58:24 reviewing 62:24 11:11,20 30:12,16 setting 14:6 recess 61:15 94:17 remains 15:20 revised 61:21 62:10 30:17,21,25 31:7 settled 73:15 recitation 52:6 remedies 52:2 63:15 32:13,15,18 33:2 seven 21:4 53:25 Remind 69:9 RICO 89: I 1 33:7 39:14,18 seventh 23:24 49:11 reckless 49:21 remote 76:23 81:24 right 3:2 32:3 45:18 40:14 44:5 45:6 sexual 65:24 66:12 recognition 61:2 repeated 31:13 48:1 55:23 92:4 45:25 46:10 47:14 66:14 69:4 75:2 recognize 59:22 repeatedly 31:9 93:19 54:9 55:15 56:25 76:14 77:25 79:12 recognized 9:10 84:16 rights 12:14 24:5,16 61:16,19 62:1,4 79:24 15:14 41:9 repetition 46:25 24:20 25:1 75:3 62:16,22 63:20 share 4:14 recommended report 50:25 road 45:12 64:3,11,23,24 Sherman 36:13,14 60:13 reported 71:4 roadmap 4:16 5:1 67:20,23,25 68:21 short 16:18 reconstitute 49:22 reporter 2:4 89:13 8:21 15:4,5,25 69:15 70:8 71:15 shot 38:15 record 11:5 39:15 represent 38:19 Rockenbach 2:5 72:13,24 73:10,19 shouting 17:12 91:6,7 39:4 30:18,20 55:11,14 73:24 75:1 76:17 show 7:23 25:17 records 81:16,19,23 representation 34:7 61:25 62:2,7,21 78:11,14 79:7,20 41:20 67:18 82:5 34:8 80:1 63:2,17 64:6 80:20 81:20 82:5 showed 4:2 69:4 recover 49:17 represented 38:24 69:10 72:14,17 82:13 83:22 84:2 showpiece 76:9 red 74:24 53:16 54:23 81:17 83:5 87:23 84:13 85:3,18 shows 44:23 45:1 redress 48:11,23 representing 12:11 88:1 92:16 87:14 89:24 90:9 sic 32:12 redressable 36:5 19:18,25 21:21 Rockenbach's 56:9 93:14 side 33:3 47:17 54:7 refer 8:8 38:10 39:12,21 room 58:19 90:6 scheme 65:2,14 67:1 84:16 93:8 reference 57:14,17 40:5 77:16 Rosenfeldt 65:5 83:13 89:20 sides 3:9 46:21 70:10 represents 37:14 Rothstein 34:19 Scherer 76:5 significant 59:6 referenced 53:10 reputation 6:8 37:19 50:23 51:13 school 22:5 77:18 57:12 66:10 18:12,24 39:2 53:18 65:2,5 scope 65:3 similar 19:1 34:16 references 69:16 request 2:4 56:19 68:23,25 69:12,25 Scott 3:15 52:9 81:1,2 referred 79:9 56:24 75:15,21 76:7 scrupulously 33:3 simple 16:18 34:14 regard 53:23 57:9 require 14:16 80:16 83:13 second 9:9 12:1 simply 5:2 6:4 15:4 60:20 61:7 65:18 required 49:24 57:7 Rothstein's 8:10,11 13:23 42:15 43:9 16:20 20:5 23:19 67:9 72:7 79:12 requiring 28:22 33:15 75:16 89:19 46:16 30:2 39:12,21 regarding 35:21 requisite 53:5 round 35:10 section 49:16 52:14 42:2 48:23 52:23 53:17 69:22 80:25 research 33:13 73:4 RRA 70:20 71:13 62:3 53:25 rejected 17:13 reservations 77:18 RRA's 71:8 see 4:5,25 8:3 34:22 single 13:1,5 17:1,9 related 18:2 21:22 resonate 85:16 rule 17:1 48:2 66:9 38:7,12 44:9 68:1 24:13 63:12 34:20 70:19 75:7 resonating 85:15 79:10,10 68:14 74:25 94:15 sir 3:6,13 10:16 80:18 resources 28:13 ruled 85:21 86:3 seek 29:7 30:16,25 83:23 relates 34:24 48:20 35:7 rules 52:10 seeking 10:13,20 84:13 85:3,18 51:11 52:5 73:11 respect 54:12 85:2 ruling 54:6 57:22 34:640:3 65:4,17 86:1 relating 70:18 77:6 91:3,11 92:24 60:25 78:7,15 66:15 78:4,17,18 site 13:6 16:25 relation 60:11 93:24 94:9 81:12 83:21 84:4 78:18 sitting 58:18 relationship 20:15 respectful 78:6 86:4 seeks 31:9 situations 61:4,4 48:8 82:21 respectfully 57:25 Six 43:25 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801628 104 sixth 19:12 23:23 89:17 supported 66:24 75:23 83:11 Thursday 55:19 36:20 49:1 statements 3:24 supporting 65:14 testimony 2:11 94:7 slammed 93:1 5:10,10,11 7:18 Supreme 4:8,9,12 33:12,21 51:4 ties 8:8 So.3d 4:22 8:6,7,12,20 9:1 4:15,17,21,25 5:2 53:21 67:21 83:10 time 12:1 13:18 solely 26:15 53:19 10:11 11:13,21 5:7,19,23 6:9 7:1 testing 36:10 86:23 14:20 26:22 35:5 somebody 17:16 18:13 20:11 22:16 7:9 8:22 12:20 thank 3:9 12:6,7 36:7 41:2 48:3 somewhat 21:17 26:4,9 37:1 47:6 15:17 16:19 18:19 30:9,16,20 33:7 53:23 56:11 57:3 son 22:8 92:7 51:12,12 88:5,6 22:11 23:13 25:15 39:17 47:25 48:1 58:4,10,20 59:7,9 Sonja 62:18 88:10 89:9 41:24 42:5 47:9 78:14 82:12 84:13 60:8,21 64:4 sorry 80:20 85:19 states 45:3 49:15 47:24 50:5 87:18 85:3,18 94:14,14 74:10 75:13 77:17 89:4 94:8 50:5,9 52:13 87:21 Thanks 63:1 64:2 91:25 92:22,25 sought 52:4 70:14 statute 10:6 17:4 sure 20:20 28:16 67:24 68:13 72:13 93:25 71:10 77:14 79:8 32:23 38:17 55:13 theory 49:8 timely 28:7 sound 3:20 statutes 24:20 61:12 72:16 82:4 thereof 2:2 21:6 times 6:17 31:14 sounds 9:6 76:1 statutory 52:18 86:1 91:11 83:19 90:7,25 South 37:18 stay 56:16 57:2,6 suspect 27:19 thick 55:2,3 today 12:13 29:25 speak 22:5 40:11 91:24 92:2 sustain 56:9 thief 89:14 57:5 91:25 92:8 56:22 59:1 stems 81:5 sustaining 77:10 thin 26:16 92:14 speaking 58:16 stenotype 2:15,17 swap 81:18 thing 6:21 7:5,23 told 4:13,15,17 31:9 speaks 37:7 49:3 step 48:3 symbols 2:18 24:13 47:15 79:19 41:8 45:10 47:24 special 14:6 steps 38:21 system 6:3,4 87:24 90:14 92:19 71:4 92:10,25 specialist 40:2 stifle 35:4 93:6,23 94:4 tortious 17:7 specific 9:15 19:24 stop 43:14 T things 17:5 33:8 torts 50:16 26:1 31:2055:5 stopped 45:13 62:8 table 56:15 39:23 58:14 65:13 touch 40:13 57:14 62:4 67:15 stretch 21:17 tag-along 25:14 80:23 88:22,23 traditional 34:24 70:10 71:17 83:24 strike 27:8 28:9,23 take 30:22 35:6 think 6:2,4 14:24 traditionally 27:7 86:13 29:5 38:15,22 40:20 30:21 31:13 38:18 transcript 1:2 2:7,9 specifically 44:13 string 16:24 55:7,22 61:10,12 41:23,25 42:19 2:12,13,14,20,22 49:4 50:8 54:15 students 22:7 63:5 64:4 67:8 45:646:10 57:11 6:20 51:2 66:8 69:16 71:18 stuff 93:2 68:12 70:2 79:7 57: I 1 58:9 60:22 transcript(s) 2:1 specified 24:12 subject 50:17 53:3 92:18 93:7,17 63:11 64:12 73:9 transmission 2:16 speech 10:24 77:9 87:20 88:4 taken 2:2 13:10 77:2 81:25 82:1,2 transpires 88:20 speeches 39:25 subjects 16:4 18:10 50:19 52:1 82:7,20 84:13 transportation 66:6 spend 14:20 submit 25:8 talk 5:14,18 8:19 87:11 89:23,24 66:17 70:19 spent 58:20 72:20 subsequent 81:2 9:1 16:3 39:6 90:25 91:3 92:9 transported 65:21 square 35:9 sue 11:20 59:25 76:24 80:25 92:13 93:16 94:10 65:22 66:2 78:21 squarely 13:19 sued 11:11 21:3 93:12 thinking 37:16 treat 53:23 stand 8:19 84:25 73:14 talked 18:20 20:13 60:24 treated 53:15 standard 44:6,15 sues 89:10.11 36:22 37:8 thinks 82:5 trial 14:12 27:3,4 standards 41:8 suffered 43:25 talking 87:22 third 13:25 42:17 58:16 59:3,11 standpoint 36:23 sufficiency 28:9,24 talks 5:20 16:6,25 71:3 90:17 60:4 61:8 73:7 60:24 sufficient 14:19 18:3 41:4 42:8 Thirty-five 69:19 91:4 92:5 stands 32:24 89:13 74:20 tangential 77:3 81:8 Thirty-six 70:12 tricking 76:8 start 3:3 21:9 43:10 suggest 11:24 55:23 te 9:10 82:9 93:9 Thirty-three 68:21 tried 13:11 50:20 61:9 91:16 suggested 38:3 teacher 22:5 thought 29:25 64:17 started 54:1I suggesting 27:23 teaching 22:7 43:13 63:8 72:22 triggering 26:7 starting 6:5 61:20 67:19 87:17 88:21 team 69:17,17,20 87:2 91:9 true 4:6 31:24 43:13 63:7 suggestion 49:13 70:1 71:10 83:14 thoughts 70:23 43:13 45:24 46:1 starts 68:3 56:10 91:20 92:15 tell 87:19 89:7 thousand 90:25 truth 9:3,24 10:10 state 44:18 suggests 86:5 telling 92:22 93:18 three 5:17 6:17 8:2 41:21 47:22 86:13 stated 12:21 15:9 suit 7:7 11:10 22:17 tells 6:9,17 7:9 8:7 13:20 29:11 88:5 23:13 48:1175:5 23:20 34:19 11:19 47:9 31:14 38:23 54:22 try 10:10 12:1,4 91:4 suits 18:23 temper 85:11 63:7,15 70:13 15:24 35:4,16 statement 5:8 6:16 summary 24:17 term 42:16 59:22 73:14 75:19 76:15 53:9 56:6 75:1 8:8 23:25 31:13 superfluous 52:22 termination 17:24 77:6,16 79:4 76:13 77:23 84:22 40:21,22 44:10,11 superimpose 73:9 terminology 42:20 80:10 82:22 83:2 91:18 44:14 52:23 54:20 supplement 94:5 terms 54:3 88:24 83:11 90:7 trying 3:23 4:4 7:18 57:16 73:18 74:3 support 23:6 29:16 test 9:3 87:15 three-minute 61.10 15:25 25:5 29:2 82:14 85:11 89:15 29:18 39:15 67:10 testified 64:19 threshold 74:8,15 77:19 80:22 81:7 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801629 105 turn 5:16 8:2 verbatim 2:10 whatsoever 38:12 15 63:3 93:17 turning 79:23 versa 32:20 4S:9 15-minute 93:8 two 5:16,20 13:14 versus 4:19 white 87:4 153 68:3 35:13 36:746:18 viable 66:4 94:4 wholly 76:22 1974 50:6 63:13 68:3 79:5 vice 32:20 Wiffiams79:10 89:2,7 90:7 91:15 victims 34:9 Nifiling58:7J393.5 2 91:16 Victims' 75:3 win 1 1:11 2 79:9 type 27:14,15 83:12 view 35:22 40:8 wish 54:16 2:00 93:10 typically 27:5 51:21 78:7 witness57:186311 20064:12 violated 36:11 witnesses5:109:11 2009 87:16 U violates 8:21 66:20 73:20 88:7 2010 73:15 US 75:16 violations 36:9,15 90:3 2017 2:3 ultimately 17:21 virtue 34:6 36:5 Wolfe 88:10,13 91:5 23 61:20 umbrella II:1 voluntarily 39:1 women 65:22 69:24 276 68:5 unadulterated 57:25 58:13 73:14 77:16 277 68:5 83:20 volunteered 54:14 word 2:17 70:25 278 68:6 uncertified 1:2 2:3,6 54:17 75:22,25 279 68:6 2:22 volunteers 59:5 words 7:4 9:16,19 29th 6:18 56:1 unclear 89:23 12:4 43:23 45:18 59:21 72:19 74:13 underaged 68:17 w 52:9 73:22 69:24 77:24 waiting 14:12 work 63:22 91:20 3 understand 3:2 waive 11:17 worked 20:12 323 50:6 14:21 78:15 83:22 want 3:3 7:23 9:7 working 63:20 34 68:21,25 84:17 92:23 11:24,25 30:18 86:11 35 68:9,21 69:15 understanding 32:5,8 33:4 40:12 works 63:25 36 68:21 70:9 61:24 94:15 41:25 46:20,25 wouldn't 38:11 understands 51:7 47: I 54:24 79:20 wrap 46:19 4 underway 61:8 79:22 80:9 81:8 write 84:25 449:16 unedited 2:3.7.22 81:13 85:11 91:10 written 2:7 30:10 40 46:19 70:6 unequivocally wanted 54:18 56:22 47:2 403 77: I 1 78:10 25:11 57:2 wrong 15:425:9 406.1244:7 unfair 80:24 wants 8:4 74:175:1 wrongful 7:4 41.5 66:9 unforeseen 93:11 Warner 91:1 415(g) 79:10 unique 18:8 warrant 6:5 X 415.5(g) 66:9 United 49:15 50:5 wasn't 31:24 418 50:6 52:13 waste 28:12 60:7,21 Y 42(k) 70:11 71:4 unleveled 80:4 wasted 59:9 Yeah 64:5 unofficial 2:9 wasting 58:9 years 14:4,10 26:22 5 unrelated 19:21 way 32:2 39:3,11 37:22 50 37:22 untimely 26:19 67:22 76:15 83:7 yesterday 55:16,21 55 46:20 untranslated 2:17 86:3 91:1 93:2 94:2 5th 2:3 untrue 71:20 ways 29:11 yielded 73:4 use 40:22 41:19,21 we're 4:4 36:4 37:3 young 65:22 77:16 6 43:23 72:14 84:7 45:7 59:24 76:2 Your-Honor 4:13 6541:17 uses 42:16 we've 11:3 64:14 6741:17 usually 27:2 86:3 utilization 33:24 website 20:II zeal 34:6,11 7 50:22 week 32:4 34:17 7th 87:16 utilized 45:18 54:12 0 weekend 72:21 8 V weeks 14:5 1 82 6:20 v 1:4 weight 44:23 45:1 149:15 52:14 valid 13:4 23:8 30:5 Welcome 3:1 1:2091.1394:16 9 49:25 well-known 40:6 10 81:19 9 52:1456:1 81:19 validity 30:1 54:1 88:16 11:16 61:15 90.403 64:15 value 64:15 76:23 went 18:1 22:4 11:24 61:15 90.404 79:8 78:8 83:17 39:10 72:20 78:3 12 70:16 vantage 59:14 91:1 12/7/09 88:3 vary 61:6 weren't 84:18 12:09 94:17 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00801630