EFTA01069394

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff• DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE v. ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Correspondence and Discovery for the reasons set forth below: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT During the underlying litigation, Epstein vigorously sought protection from the Court that these and other documents produced would be used for purposes other than those contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery, i.o., dissemination in the media. His rights to contest this type ofuse were preserved as part of the settlement of these proceedings, which provided for confidentiality of the settlement as well as provisions to bring these matters to a close. Now, the fears that led to Epstein's efforts to seek protection from the court have now come to pass. The intended use of these documents is now leading to more litigation that the settlement of these cases was designed to end. Epstein requests that the court grant protection so that this does not occur. Luas Banat, ItCOUDA 33401 •(961)802.9094 YOWL311 Marl /31)11}14r7, PA. • NICLIPSPOINT - Wen TOWalt, SW= 904771804M* /140Lat Diun,IVirr EFTA01069394 Natalie A. Trompet From: Jacqueline M. Borrero Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:45 PM To: Natalie A. Trompet Subject: LAS login CM/ECF SDFL (LAS) user: a pass: 1 EFTA01069395 Case 9:08-ov-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et aL Tl STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS 1. In July 2010, the Defendant, pursuant to certain discovery orders (D.E. 462 and 572) entered by this court produced correspondence and documentation between Epstein's attorneys/agents and federal prosecutors ("Correspondences). 2. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into settlement agreements in the above-styled matter and in matters of ■ v. Epstein, Case No. 502008 CA028051 XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County and in El vs. Epstein, Case No. 502008 CA028058 >OOOCMB AB, filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. The parties entered into a Joint Stipulation, a copy of which isattached hereto as Exhibit "1" to govern the use of public disclosure of discovery of the Correspondence. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation. 4, On August 26, 2010, counsel for the Plaintiff served notice of its intent to use the Correspondence in two court proceedings, an internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, and other, essentially public matters. It is also anticipated that the documents will be released to the media. A copy of the Notice of Intent to Use is attached hereto as Exhibit1". 5. The Joint Stipulation provides that if Epstein chooses to serve an objection, the Correspondence will remain confidential until the court has had an adequate opportunity to review the materials and enter a ruling. -2- Pavia WantLam, TA • pmu-os POW • Win Tow" Sin 901,m SOunirim= WIST PAW BUCK.Plank 33401• EFTA01069396 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOIHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. 6. On August 30, 2010, the undersigned's firm requested counsel for the Plaintiff to identify the documents they intend to use so that Epstein would be in a position to prepare an appropriate response, which was rejected. The undersigned's law firm understands that the correspondence in question is in excess of 100 documents. In general, the documents consist of communications between Mr. Epstein's defense counsel and the United States Attorney's Office regarding the investigation, negotiation and settlement of potential criminal charges against Mr. Epstein. DESCRIPTION OF INTENDED USE Epstein respectfully submits that a brief description of the proceedings that counsel for the Plaintiff has stated that they intend to use the Correspondence will be helpful to the court: A. Epstein v. Edwards Case No. 502009 CA040800,OOOCMB AG The Plaintiff Epstein commenced an action on December 7, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley Y. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged illegal Pon zi scheme by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff believes others as well, to market investments to outside investors in lawsuits brought against Epstein by a number of Plaintiffs, represented by the now defunct Law Firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). Some of the lawsuits were transferred to a newly formed firm of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ("Farmer Jaffe"). Epstein has alleged and believes that the Defendants and perhaps other former employees of ERA conspired to use the Epstoin/LM litigation before this court and perhaps other ' The claim against LM was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. FUAIDA 77401 • FOWLER WAITE B1111181T, P.A. • PHILLIPS Pcun - Won TOWLE, SUITE 901, 777 Scum 1.)-00in Dove, Wm PAIN BEACH, EFTA01069397 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. litigation to lure investors in to making approximately $13 million dollars worth of investments into phoney settlements by using pending real cases. Counsel for those investors, William Scherer, whose is also a member of the Creditor's Committee in the RRA bankruptcy, represented to the bankruptcy court that a number of his clients and their lawyer went into the ARA conference room and were allowed to go through the LM cast file boxes, approximately 10 of them, and concluded that the Epstein case was a real case and ultimately invested money. A copy of the transcript ofthis bearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Mr. Scherer's remarks appear on pages 17-227 On August 13,2010, Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Rayordered in response to a subpoena from Epstein the appointment of a special master to review in excess of 6,000 electronically stored documents of RRA that relate to Epstein and other litigation to prepare a privilege log in anticipation of production of relevant non-privileged documents. A copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "4". B. In Re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736-Marra/Johnson In 2008, Jane Doe filed an action under the Crime Victims Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S. Code § 3771 on behalf of two alleged victims of the alleged sexual assault by Epstein. Since 2008 there has been little if any activity on that file. The articulated purpose of the use of these documents is in an effort to set aside the "Non Prosecution Agreement" which Epstein entered into 'It is difficult to believe that if what Mr. Scherer has stated is true, that Mr. Edwards was not aware that his case files were being shown to outside investors. -4- Tows; SUITS 901,777 sours BAGIsk DI WEST PALM BnAC11, Matra 33401. (MI) 80240414 WIZ Patna BIJANITT. PA • Faults poNr 'ar EFTA01069398 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Casc No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRADOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. with the federal government. Neither victim has met the requirements of 18 U.S. Code § 3771(d)(5)(A-C), which requires the court to assert her rights before and during the proceeding and to petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus if such right is denied. (See: Docket Entries for Doe v. U.S., 9:08-80736-KAM). It is hard to believe that a case that has been languishing in excess of two years will be revived to invalidate an agreement that the U.S. Attorneys Office entered into with Epstein after the agreement has been fully performed. C. Justice Department Ombudsman and other uses The Code of Federal Regulations has set out the procedures to promote compliance with crime victims' rights. 28 C.F.R. § 45.10. In order to take advantage of this complaint process, the Code of Federal Regulations requires that complaints must be submitted within ninety (90) days of the victim's knowledge of a violation, but not more than one (1) year after the actual violation. 28 C.F.R. § 45.10(c)(3). It is obvious from the inaction of these proceedings and earlier filed pleading that this time frame has expired. Therefore the articulated intended use of the documents in this complaint proceeding is suspect on its face, thus leaving the only other articulated purposes which essentially is to allow the documents to go into the public domain. IV. MEMORANDUM OF LAW The policies behind FRE 408, and 410 provide this court for basis of sustaining Epstein's objections to the production of these documents. The intended use contravenes a critical public policy ofencouniging resolution o f criminal prosecutions without trial. Defendants are considerably Fowusot What B4.9.747T, P.A. • r:MILS POINT Varr rCars., Sun" 901, 777 SWIll PLAGLES DOVE, WM PAW Bncn, PLO.I:DA 33401 • (561)1102.9044 EFTA01069399 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-C1V-8089 3-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. more likely to engage in full and frank discussions with the government if they do not fear that statements they or their counsel make to government prosecutors will be used against them to their detriment in other proceedings. More specifically, Rule 408 prohibits the use of any evidence offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of any claim that was disputed. Rule 410 makes inadmissible pleas, plea discussions and related statements. The exceptions under each of these rules do not apply. Evidence of statements made during plea negotiations are also not admissible under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.1720). They are not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer or who conducted the negotiations. Similar provisions in Florida Evidence Code exist. Statements made as part of settlement negotiations are inadmissible. The exception under each of these rules also do not apply. See: §§ 90.408 and 90.410, Fla. Stat (1976). The Florida Rule, like its Federal Rule Counterpart, was adopted to promote plea bargaining by allowing a defendant to negotiate without waiving Fifth Amendment protection. The most significant factor in the rules of adoption was the need for free and open discussion between the prosecution and defense during attempts to reach a compromise United States v. Davis, 617 F. 2d 677, 683 (DC Cir. 1979), cited in Nunes v State of Florida, 988 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). It would obviously present a chilling effect on any settlement discussions if such discussions could later be used as admissions of liability at trial or in any other proceeding. Bank Card America, Inc. v. Universal Bank Card Systems, Inc., 203 F. 3d 477, 483 (7m Cir. 2000). One court in the -6 FowaR WanBvvwn, PA -Pxu n Pow • WM Town, Sum 901,777 So M PLAOLNI Days, Wen PA1M Bans,DAMtun 33401 • (561)403.9044 EFTA01069400 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 7 of 10 Jane Doe v, Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRAUOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. federal court system has held that communications falling within the parameters of Rule 408 are covered by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically slated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement negotiations...the ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial fosters a more efficient, more cost effective, and significantly less burden to the judicial systern...parties must be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. They must be able to make hypothetical concessions, offer creative quid pro quos, and generally make statements that would otherwise belie their litigation efforts. Goodyear Tire, Id. at 980. The same is no less true in the plea negotiation context particularly where a central component of the discussions and negotiations between counsel for Epstein and counsel for the United States Attorney was to reach an agreement on conditions relating to compensation for his alleged victims. The court ordered discovery of this Correspondence so the Plaintiff could determine if it contained any admissible information that would advance a stand-alone federal civil action. Instead, Epstein submits that the real use of this Correspondence will be to further counsel for the of Plaintiffs legislative, political and philosophical mission to expand victim rights. This kind extrinsic use of such discovery chills and compromises the presumptive confidentiality of written and often frank discussions between counsel. Epstein intended his communications with United States Attorney's Office to be private and protected by FRE 410. The communications from the U.S. POwLiiii MUTE Buvistr, PA,- hoist; Poofr - WAS/ Town, Stun 901.77/Sotrrn ElAaux Dues, Warr PALM BkA I, FLOXIDA 33401 • EFTA01069401 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 Jane Doc v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CP/-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Attorney to Epstein's counsel reflect these discussions and were also intended to be private. Now, after the fact to allow it to be disseminated to victim's rights advocates to change legislation totally defeats the public policy consideration of encouraging the resolution of criminal prosecutions without trial. V. RELIEF REQUESTED Epstein requests that this Court grantthe Motion forProtective Order by preventing disclosure and order Plaintiffs' counsel to return, without keeping copies, the Correspondence to counsel for Epstein. Alternatively, there aro in excess of 100 documents of Correspondence; and as noted, counsel for Plaintiff has refused to agree to designate which they intend to use. Therefore, in the event this court is inclined to order the release of said correspondence, then Epstein requests an in-camera inspection of which documents Plaintiff intends to use to determine what, if any, documents are related to the foregoing pleas and what documents are not. Along the same lines, Epstein requests an in-camera inspection in an effort redact any information that may violate thirdparty privacy rights or information that would implicate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights and to thither brief these issues. VI. LOCAL RULE 7.1 STATEMENT Pursuant to the above Rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and are unable to resolve this matter. MACH, ?LOAM* 33401._ Fowia Wang BUR.NITT.PA • PavanFiona - War TOwni. sir. 3 901,777 Soy HFuca.. Dula, War PALK EFTA01069402 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 9 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-8089344ARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CWECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CNVECF on this 2nd day of September, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. & Lehrman, PL 250 Australian Avenue, South 423 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 1400 Suite 2 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fax Fax Co-counse or Je rey Epstein -9- nosnm 33401. (561)5024044 Swum Wins Ituassrr, P.A. • Muss Pont • War Town, Suns 901,77) SOVIII Pumas Dans, WmPALMBOALW, EFTA01069403 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's MPO, Objections and Integrated Memo of Law et al. Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 33 2 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Co-Counselfor Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph L. Ackerman. Jr. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fla. Bar No. 235954 Lilly Ann Sanchez Fla. Bar No. 195677 FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Plagler Drive West Palma Florida 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Co-Counselfor Defendant Affrey Epstein Ml WM0143\1411illt03/444Kso Ox Protado• O.4. WOC Dee vEriskAA(9/2110-/S39) -10- PALM WIACII, FLOML33401 • FOWLS Wens Swarm P.A. • hates POINT • WIWI Town. Ain 901,177 SOWN FLA,Milt Dna, Win EFTA01069404 Page 1 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 3 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 —MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, • v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Joint Stipulation plaintiff, JANE DOB and Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epst ein"), hereby file their ed By Jane Doe's attorneys during Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Correspondence Obtain discovery, and each state: Edwards, Fistos and 1. In July 2010, the law firm of Palmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Jay Howell, Esq. ("Counsel") Lehrman, PL. (the "Law Firm"), Paul O. Cassell, Esq. and ents (including content thereof) received through discovery certain correspondence and docum "Corre spondence"). between Epstein's attorneys/agents and federal prosecutors (the e whether the 2. Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagre Correspondence is confidential. da to Settlement 3. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Adden s Bosse n, CASE Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matter ofIlLia, CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 NO. 502008 CA028051 XJQCCMB AB and in pending cases of Bpstein /OOO11133 AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence Jane Does 1 and2, CASE agggsio, CASE NO. 502009CA040800)DCOCMB AO and In Re: 1 FJCHIBIT 1 1 EFTA01069405 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 3 NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at MIIIIMEMI of their intent to use or provide the Conespondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under sent. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant requests that the Court enter an order on the above stipulation and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Local Rule 7.1 Slattille111 Pursuant to the above rule, the undersigned counsel and Plaintiff's counsel have conferred and have agreed to same. RespectthIly submitted, BY:J.O31;4Kit D Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 2 EFTA01069406 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM . Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 3 of 3 catfiegaptfiegna I HEREBY CERTIFY &statue copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following service list in the =mot specified via transmission of Notices of Eeetronio Filing getended by CM/ECP on this 19th day of July, 2010: Brad Edwards, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, \Wining, Edwards, Pisan Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. & Lehmaan, PL 250 Australian Avenue South 425 N. Andrews Ave. Suite 1400 Suite #2 FL 33401-5012 Port 33301 Phon • Fax: Co-Counselfir Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Paulo. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Ytce 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake ,UT 84112 Fax unsulor By: /1/ Robert D. Critton. h. ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 la.m raig(a>i;?!*i,Esin MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #611296 mulkoVelotave.corn BU'RMAN, CRITTON, LOTT= & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 FL 33401 Phone Fax for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 3 EFTA01069407 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 5 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Order Adopting and Entering joint Stipulation This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Stipulation, and counsel being in agreement with the entry of the Stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 1. The Joint Stipulation is hereby Adopted and Entered. 2. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of 1._vs, Epstein. CASE vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 riCialvfa AB and NO. 502008 CA028058 )OODCMB AB, Counsel may \Nish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v. Rothstein CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXX3v1B AG and In Re: Jane Does I and 2, CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to EFTA01069408 Case 9:08-cv-50893-KAM Document 214-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 5 of 2 Case 9:08-cv-80893•KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07119/2010 Page 2 Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critic]; Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at JIMEMEI) of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. 3. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice. If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may tile the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court Is in a position to rule on the objection. DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010. Linnea IL Johnson United States Magistrate Judge Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record EFTA01069409 Case 9:08-cv-80593-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 3 Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Pig Tun Class taloa Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. Foetal Wuri weenevilkatth Canwerclei lltintbn PATNTOJII STILL . C0M August 26,2010 Robert D. Critton,Jr., Esq. BURMAN. GLUTTON, et at 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Mr. Critton, We are writing to advise you of our intention to use in two pending court cases and a Justice Department complaint process correspondence between Epstein's representatives and federal prosecutors. As we have indicated to you in the past, we do not believe that we are under any restrictions with regard to using these materials in filed court cases and are not aware of any court order restricting our use of this correspondence. You have not directed us to any such court order. Nonetheless, you apparently believe that some sort of restriction exists. Accordingly, we have agreed to give you notice of our intention to use the correspondence so that you can, if you so choose, file an objection. As you know, Epstein recently chose to settle the lawsuit of Doe v. Frmin, Case Na 08- CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, shortly before trial. The settlement he reached followed a few days after he provided to us, as Jane Doe's legal counsel, correspondence between his representatives and the U.S. Attorney's Office in connection with a federal prosecution related to sex offenses against minors that the U.S. Attorney's Office was conducting. That correspondence demonstrates that Epstein was prepared to plead guilty to sexually abusing children. As you also know, Epstein has chosen to ale a lawsuit against one of us (Brad Edwards, Esq.) in which he alleges that civil lawsuits against him for sexually abusing children were trumned up as some sort of a scheme to extort money from him. As you also know, Epstein took the S during his deposition on all relevant questions rather than providing supporting responses for his lawsuit. Finally, as you know, there is currently pending before Judge Mann a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 5 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by 425 North An Suite 2, ale, Florida 33301 office fax EFTA01069410 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 3 Robert D. Craton,Jr., Esq. August 26, 2010 Page 2 allege under the Act. For example, the victims Epstein allege they were deprived of their rights bargain arrangements and an opportunity to plea that there were deprived of notice of pendinglly confer with prosecutors. The correspondence be heard as well as the right to mean ingfu al of their claims, as it demonstrates that feder provided to us is compelling evidence in supportwith Epstein months before they alerted the s prosecutors were conducting plea discussion corre spondence also demonstrates a willful plan to victims to any possible plea barg ain. The discussions. keep the victims in the dark about the plea of this correspondence in the two lawsuits In light of these facts, we intend to make use tion you made to the documents (and we the redac mentioned above. Of course, because of tion of Judge Marra's Order), no actual statements challenged and firmly belie ve was a dear viola federal In the documents — only statements from from Epstein's representatives are disclosed prosecutors. : Our currently planned use includes the following gpstein y: Edwards tless for summary Judgment on Epstein's meri Mr. Jack Scarola, Esq., will file a motion pursuing Edwards' counterclaim for abuse of well as lawsuit against Brad Edwards, Esq., as ally abusing that he was guilty of the crime of sexu motion for process. To dem onstr ate that Epst ein knew of the corre spon denc e as exhi bits to our children, he intends to attach relevant parts purs uing the counterclaim. Mr. Scarola, as Edw ards summary Judg ment and vario us moti ons hip and privi lege, has an attorney clien t relat ions counsel and someone with whom Edwardsthe settlement agreement was reached and is not a received the documents in ques tion befo re we are giving theless, out of an abundance of caution, party to the setdement agreement. None ded use of the documents. you notice of his upcoming additional inten 08-00735-MARRA/IOFINSON Jn lite:Jane Doc, Case No. ional ably resolved, we will shortly be filing addit Now that the civil cases have been favor ask for remedies to protect the victims' rights will pleadings in the CVRA case. These pleadings of the non-prosecution agreement that the U.S. under the CVRA, as well as the inva lidat ing in violation of the CVRA. Attorneys Office entered with Epstein to have a under the CVIZA, we will be seeking Related to these efforts to secure relief so that It better protects victims of sexual abuse A legislative initiative made to modify the CVR effor t, we intend to share the correspondencwho is e with othe r serio us crim es. As part of that Crim e, and the National Center for Victims of Susan Howley, Legislative Director fore aides to Senator Leahy about modifications to the currently in discussions with legislativcorrespondence with Meg Garvin, Fixative Director of CVRA. We hardier intend to share the in Portland, Oregon. As you may know, Ms. Garvin tute the Nadonal Crime Victims Law Insti matter early on. Ms. Garvin is also in contact with work ed with the victi ms in the CVR A also been in congressional staff abou t the need for modifications to the CVRA. She has about the g Office (GAO), which Issue d a repo rt discussions with the General Accountin asing Awareness, Modifying the Compliant Process, effectiveness of the CVRA. See GAO , Incre 425 North Ara Solt* 2,Cislaidalle. Florida 33301 offke MIIMMM fax EFTA01069411 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 3 Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esq. August 26, 2010 Page 3 and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring with Improve Implementation of the Act (Dec. 2008). The GAO is continuing to monitor compliance with the Act, and we intend to ask Ma Garvin to share the correspondence with the GAO. As you may know, in the past crime victims groups have succeeded in changing victim's rights' laws and then having those changes applied to currently pending cases. Sec cg.., Paul G. retell Barbarians at the Gates? A Reply co the Critics oftisc Victims' Rights Amendment, 1999 Utah L Rev. 479, 518-19 (discussing remedial legislation passed by Congress to protect victims of the Oklahoma City bombing which Congress intended to apply to pending trials). Justice Department Ombudsman The Justice Department also has a process for considering complaints by mime victims about their treatment in the criminal justice process They have an ombudsman, who will consider specific complaints. We intend to file a complaint with the Ombudsman about the handling of this case, and in doing so plan to share our documents with the Ombudsman and i • seek advice from other attorneys who work in the legal clinics for the National Crime Victims Law Institute about how to most effectively file such a complaint. The uses listed above are examples and are not intended to be exclusive descriptions of our intention to use these documents in judicial and legislative fors Unless we hear from you within seven days that you have initiated legal action to bar us from malting the above-described uses of the correspondence, we will move forward with doing so. •- 425 North An Suite j • e, Florida 33301 office fax EFTA01069412 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10 hp 3 Piss I I OW TED STATE& BANXRVYTCY COURT I THE COURT: Rothstein Rosonfeldt & Adler. SOUTHERN ourwaror FLORIDA 2 All right May I have appearances. Please? 7 3 MR. L1CHTMAN: Good morning, Judge. 3 4 Chuck Lichtma Berger Singe:man, for the trustee. 4 CASE 7107 117447914ECRER 5 MR. NEIW1RTH: Good morning, your Honor. 1 6 Ronald Nedwirth, Fowler White Burnett, on behalf of , Epstein, and with me today are two of my 6 In go 7 ROTHSTIONROssNYELDT Attn. r. o... 7 the avant 8 DobHt. 8 partners , Chris Knight and Lilly Ann Sanchez— 9 MS. SANCIIEZ: Good morning, your honor. 9 10 MR. KNIGHT: Good morning, your Honor. ID II MR. NEIW1RTH: — both of whom are more It 12 familiar with the State Court angle on this then I mum atoms VO Coat PIDDDUCtICH or oocuars PROM HED 13 ern, so they camo dons to be able to elucidate that I1 PURSVANT TODOCI.0&24 PRODUCTION PROTOCO L klErAELIS St 13411672607& AMENDED 140110N FOR PRUTECTIVE ORDER 14 end of it 11 (819) 15 MR. FARMER: Good morning, your Honor. 14 16 Gary Fairer on behalfofLM,Brad Edwards, and If . Afloat 4,2010 17 the Farmer Jaffe WeissIng law firm. We are an 18 18 interested party and have filed a motion for tto abcootn0Oxl flue WM corer 17 HONORAI5 1,14 RAY/407 0a RAY. 19 protectiv e order as to the subpoena that is at is barks tem du 19 as or IM Sip, oft)* (ROM STATES BANKRUP TCY 20 issue lame today. 20 COURT, to sod for the SOUTHERN DIM/CIO? FLORIDA , 21 THE COURT: AU right. Insofar as the 21 •1299Eul Ilsord MA. can tax4a171,,Bmonad 22 TD Bank motion, Docket Entry 780, that has been the d 13 Oaanly, Florida, oa Toady. Awat 4,3010, ed VS 23 subject matter ofan agreed order that was submitte 23 asmascreln as or 12.4590 am. roma: tome. 24 24 proodint4 wore /me 7.5 Reasoffl y: Napa' Musa 25 MR. LICHI'MAN: Correct Judge. Pena hp 2 I APPEARANCES. 1 THE COURT Mr. Sauer. 1 2 MR. SCHEREFt: Yes, sit your Honor. J m at amoattwot 7:"QuiRi ma w RS H. H 1.1CWAN, 3 gm William Scherer and l'm hero on behalf of a 4 number of victims In thc State Court action, as 4 onIxba1f of Os hums s 5 well as tbe clubman of the authors' committee 6 CONRAD & WILMER b7* 6 In the bankruptcy. WILLIAM R. SCHERER ESQUIRE 7 gm tottollot7trlow 7 THE COURT: Ail right That lawn us with s 8 8 Docket Entry 807 and 819. 807 is Jeffrey Eprtein' 9 POWL.ER warn smart. by RONALD O. hEIVIIRT1L ESQUIRE 9 motion. 10 LILLY ANN SANC:1032, ATTORNEY.AT.LAW 10 MR. NE1WIRTH: Thank you, your Honer, end OIRISTOPIER B. KNIC911-, ESQUIRE 11 again, good morning. We represent Jeffrey Epstein. ii II3SEM L ACKERMAN, ESQUIRE claim pending In State Court in 'actuatorkern II4otaln 12 He has a civil a on 22 13 Paint Beach County. He had served a subpoen tate. RRA 13 FARMER JANE WEESSNO EDWARDS ELS1D5 & Llat2M/31 4. by 14 Mr. Stain requesting documents Erom the 74 CARY FARMER, ESQUIRE 15 That was book in April. BEAD EDWARDS. agora 16 While this was still in process, In :5 0,11WIN!a L.24, Brad Edson& and 17 May, under Docket Entry 672, your Honor tittered Farmai .1s.lb Wtisting &Nardi Flew & Lotman g 16 18 an order standardizing procedures for obtainin 19 disoovery from Mr. Stettin and the RBA estate, 11 20 and al last on the face ofit, it takes IS 19 21 Jurisdiction over all discovery offous against to 22 the trustee. That loft us in a quandary. a: 23 we had a subpoena pmding In State 22 23 24 Court No had correspondence from Berger 24 25 Shiva= on behalfof the trate° that they had 25 EFTA01069413 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 10 Par rs I taken jurisdiction over those discovery maile 1 identified information and they wore procesaiug 2 and attem pted to stand ardize disco very effort s 2 it, including vetting for attorney/client 3 for the trustee. There's a lot of people that 3 privilege Issues, but then in the meantime came 4 want things from the trustee. 4 your Honor's order on May 18th, so we had to go 5 The trustee is overseeing an creme 5 back and reinvent the wheel and go throuthat. gh the lawyers 6 which involved somewhere in excess of 70 6 necessary hoops in order to comply with 7 and lots of oases and lots of probl ems, and 7 In the meantime, as we sit hero now, we 8 literally millions of documents, and wo have S still have no production. We have a trial date 9 absolutely no problem with the standardize d coming up in October, and we have a motion for 10 order, but that means that somehow or other we 10 promotive order coming from a party who's 11 have to be table to deal with tt in a standardized II already settled out, the LM party. They no 12 manner, Instead of Mr. Farmer's sugge stion, which this. 12 longer have anything directly to do with 13 is go back to State Court and deal with it over 13 Furth er, we are advis ed by the what was 14 there. 14 creditors' committee that in addition to there 15 THE COURT: What b the status of the State time Is proffered to us, that at some point in 16 Cour t proce eding ? records 16 had been something like ten boxes of 17 MR. NEIW1RTH: May I defer to my partne r, someone 17 pertaining to these particular issues and 18 whorls mom familia with that? s had been given , or 18 on behal f of the victim s to those 19 MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Christopher 19 several someones, had been given acces 20 Knigh t, if I may? While we were waiting for the 20 ten boxes and had viewed them, which would 21 documents from the Stettin office, we obviously in any 21 vitiate any attorney/cheat privilege 22 wanted to go down two tracks becau se we had en is we could not 22 even t 23 October trial date. The statue of it 23 So what we are trying to do Is fashion side. 24 come to an agreement with the other in which the your order, 24 a mechanism so we can comply with 25 Mr. Acke rman was at the last bearin g, ti s of getting 25 Docket 672, about standardized mean bon Papa ve of the 1 I judge said, one, I need a representati production from the trustee, allow for the 2 trustee here and two, shoul dn't this be beck before 4 2 appro priate vetting of the materials for 3 you, Judge Ray. roust bear in 3 attorney/orient privilege, and we 4 THE COURT: You can't proceed agairo t mind that this is one objector, there 's a lot tein in the State Court , they'r e here. 5 Roths thing I $ more documents than that. 6 MR. KNIGHT: And that is %haunt To the best of our knowkdge, the , who Is 7 think Judge Crow recog nized , end that's why were 1 7 documents that pertain to the 124 party those which 8 heck hero, end Mats why wo had to file the motion. perce nt of MIL ACKERMAN: no claim sgairat 8 settled anyw ay, may be 15 I made of the 9 9 are responsive to the Inquiry that we 10 Roths tein is against him individually, and it's t one has to vet 10 trustee, but in any event, some and do a II against Brad Edwards Individually, and it was y/cli ent privil ege 11 them for anno 12 against one of the claimants, LM r 12 privilege log. 13 THE COURT: So It's not against the debto 13 Now, Mr. Fannels office on behalf of 14 estate . don't think that's 14 LM wants to do that. We 15 MR. ACICERMAN: That's correct. the privilege at this on 15 appro priate . We think 16 MIL KNIGHT: Just to go a little Amber case b settle d, Iles with RRA of those documents L6 point , since the truste e, rather than 17 what Mr. Neksirth was saying,. Out very few of ore, the time, 17 and, theref se as to them the 18 we've been asking for for a long IR Mr. Farmer and his client, becau them would even have privil ege on their face because 19 19 case is over. nothi ng to do with the clients that wane 20 they have 20 Furthermore, we don't think there is 21 represented, what's been called as LM. 21 any privil ege because the boxes Dave been vetted 22 if there's going to be If that from 22 before and we'll liar more about was the one 23 there's any aced, which l don't think that is he 23 Mr. Scherer, I assume, because 24 becau se 1 think privil ege has boon waived, it 24 that was aware of that. 25 7100:53 tO be a leg put together by the trust" 25 And last, but not least, your Honor has 2 (Pages 5 to 8) REPORTERS. INC. OUELLETTE & MAIM. EFTA01069414 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 10 1 Npn Naga 1 everybody Ent. not anybody else that has some sort of interest 2 MR. KNICEIT: Okay. r, may it 2 In it. 3 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Hono 3 If there's a problem with payment for 4 please the Cour t. Agaln , Cary Farm er on beha lfof d 4 those, et cetera, our client has already offere 5 the intere sted earle. , LM, also on beha lf of 5 to the trustee, to Mr. Litththan,r or we will pay for r,Mr. Edwards whether Ifs 6 Bred Edwards and Tm cony, your Hono 6 whether it's a special maste 7 Es here with me. I neglected to introduce him to the 7 a contr act attorn ey, if they aced to do tint, but 8 Oaurt earlier, 8 I don't think we even need to reach that 9 MR.EDWARDS: Good morning, your Honor. 9 I think these documents are long 10 MR. FARMER: Them has been a lot of others, they 10 overdue. They have been produced to they 11 discussion here about your Honor's stand to ardized used in depos itions for other s, 11 have been and I think the privile ge issue is 12 production order and I think that you need Is 12 are out there , r, which to keep our 13 widen:trod that this particular matte 13 Just being used as a smoke screen 14 before you today , Is anyth ing but stand ard or common ents he 14 client from being able to got the docum 15 to the taunters befor e this Cote . to prove his case. 15 needs to bo able 16 Youneed to understand the nature of 16 Thank you. 17 the we. Jeffrey Epstein is an admitted lted 17 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honor, one other 18 convicted pedophile. He sexually assau age of rn about 18 matter. Judge Crow expressed a conce 19 dozens and dozens of young girls under d the ( or his 19 entering any order against the unto 20 15. lie pkd guilty to this and he has settle nt. 20 counsel without them being prese to 21 every civil lawsuit filed against hbn on this 21 Initially we had filed a motion V Issue. didn't realize 22 compel in the State Court, but we 23 Despite all o f this, Mr. Epstein has se we had 23 at the time or it was unclear, becau 24 seen t to file u lawsuit against 1../4, who fi is one over the case from another law firm, st 24 Just taken Its order. 25 of the plaintiff§ against Elm; again 25 that the Court had entered Pate 12 Ps5z to st 1 Brad Edwards, LM's attorney; and again There was some discussion prior to the 2 Mr. Roths tein. !noting, It was 2 hearing and when wo went to the 3 Now, Edwards, mYself, and all the that had 3 clear that them was no agreement 4 111003 b4.11 of our firm were RRA attorneys when Crow said, Pm not entering an to Morocco 4 existe d and Judge on this motion 5 Mr. Rothstein took his ill-Cated trip n, 5 order, Pm not doing anything represented. 6 and did the things which are now so well know 6 until the bankruptcys-zed trustee is the fact of the matter is that this discovery because this Court's 7 but He was ponce clearly 7 dure for 8 request is a blatant attempt to obtain order had set up the standardized procereserved 9 privile ged docum ents relate d to the and had victims, by 9 dealing with these tegument, ena or request 10 representation ofLM end many other 10 jurisd iction relati ng to any subpo 11 the way. n so that's why 11 for documents Prom the Caste 12 And if I can show your Honor a copy of 12 we're here now. 13 the subpo ena Static I don't think that the 13 THE COURT: All right 14 bread th of the subpoena bas been adequately MR. KNIGHT: Your Honor, Just ono other 14 been work ing with 15 repres ented to the Court. If you peruse this, 15 point. We tried to work, and we've 16 you will see they are asking for communications a protective order 16 Mr. Lichtman, tried to work out 17 with priva te inves tigators, they're asking for in regarding the 17 between the trustee and Epste 18 contingency fee contr acts, they're asking for Ms. Sanchez agreed to unication between any member of the 18 subpoena. Mr. Licht:man and 19 every comm of it. 19 language on it have a copy 20 form, and they throw Rothstein in just to make It 20 Mr. Fanner, with his motion for 21 sexy, about those can agree to that, but If Now, your Honor, clearly communication 21 protective order, would not copy of what the 22 would like to haven mils under 22 the Cour t ach your cleric, but ifyou 23 about the representation o f a client is 23 draft was, I will appro 24 not only the work product, but if the client 24 do not want that 1also — 25 involv ed In the comm unication, also the 25 THE. COURT: Well, let me hear from 3 (Pages 9 to 12) 0UrEarny C te1AMOAT nktl'0RTERS,174C. EFTA01069415 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 4 of 10 /Mc IS Apr3 1 attorney/client privilege. 1 Ms. Scherore clknts, who lave claims before 2 Now, most of this stuff we've already 2 this Court, and hopefully they will get some forte 3 responded and said none, none, none, but for many 3 of relief from the Bankruptcy Court, Epstein is 4 of these items, we have asserted the privileg e 4 not seeking any bankruptcy assets. He's suing 5 and we continue to assert the privileg e. 5 Bred Edwards and LM personally, and Scott 6 Now, the only reason the trustee is 6 Rothstein, and Ws not en estate dais, It's 7 here — 7 against Scott Rothstein personalty. THE COURT: Walt, there's bean a privilege 8 So my suggestion, your Honor, is that S you Instruct the trustee to turn this electronic asserted in the State Court proceed ing? 9 R: air. ID docume ntation information over to us. We will 10 MR. FARME Y63, iate privilege log with the a privileg e log 11 file the appropr 11 THE COURT: And there is 12 Circuit Court judge who is presiding over the 12 and the Judge has made a ruling? most familiar with the case, who 13 MR. FARMER: No. The dispute now really is 13 case, who b to fie the e log and 14 will be consider ing the upcoming motion for I4 over who's going privileg Judgme nt, and possibly trying the case, suggest a that the 15 surunar y 15 respectfully, Judge, what we that way your Honor is not burdened with this 16 and 16 trustee has been thrust into this matter simply matter, the trustee dots not Incur foes and 17 17 because the trustee stands In the shoes of an the expense s of havhig to go through all of these s at RRA, and the trustee is likewise 18 18 former attorney and 19 domenents, prepare a privilege log and our 19 bound by the privileges that attach to the cases clients and Mr. Edwards — Mr. Edwards is also a 20 20 to the lawyer that were at the rim party of that lawsuit. He enjoys his own The matte ha repeatedly acknowledged 21 21 privilege, your Honor, ova and above, or in feet that it Is bound by those privileg es 22 22 the to, I should say, the privilege as your Honor knows, the 23 arldidon 23 and, of course, d by our former clients and, of count, not to any 24 possesse 24 privilege belongs to the client, CO011Sel knows that the privilege extends 25 I31oW 25 lawyer or any law finn. Past is So the trustee is really kind of stuck I beyond the litigetion. 1 So although Mr. Epstein paid a ton of 2 2 in the middle here. You've got the pedophile who 3 money for this claim that is supposedly 3 wants documents related to the cases ha already 4 frivolous, it has been settled, but the privilege 4 settled and pled guilty for. Those documents, 5 sill extends and it remains In place, So we 5 the electronic documents, at least, the emaila 6 simply want to make sure that our Investigative 6 electronically stored information Is how it's 7 materials, our reports, other documentation 7 referred to in the discovery request, your Honor, 8 relating to the calms we hare and have tad 8 are not in our possession, they are in the 9 against Jeffrey Epstein are not put into the 9 possession of the trustee because the trustee 10 hands of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys. 10 took the computer system. 11 Now, we just want the chance to review II So the trustee doesn't went to incur nts and prepare the privilege log rind 12 these docume 12 the cost and expense of filing a privilege log 13 the trustee Is kind of stuck In the middle here, 13 and, frankly, I don't know that the trustee has a 14 Judge. Remove the trustee from the equation, let 14 WU appreciation of the nature and specific 15 us get the documents, we'll filo the privilege 15 acts of the cases that would enable it to 16 log, and then Mr. Epstein and vs can go before 16 conduct a complete privilege 17 Judge Crow. He can review the privilege log, 17 So my suggestion, your Honor, and ifs 18 review the documents in tamest IS been rejected — 11xlieve Wa acceptable to the I9 All that is going to be pretty time s 19 trustee, but it's been rejected by Mr. Epstein' consum ing, but ho's much mom suited, a better counsel , is the trustee be remove d from this 20 20 21 suited judge because he's more familiar with the 21 equation. There's no need that we come back 22 (WAS to engage in that inquiry. 22 before you. THE COURT: Thank you. This case, this Epstein case, is not a 23 23 24 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor. 24 matter which would involve bankruptcy estate THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, Mr. Scherer, your 25 25 assets going to Mr. Epstein. Unlike ........•••••••al•M4 0 .471.3,6J • v .% ••., 4 (Pages13 to i6) OUELLETTE & MAROON REPORTERS, LNC. EFTA01069416 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 5 of 10 hie / 9 his IT were I allegations in the LM case that they know I input, phase. . not true, b order to entice my client s into 2 2 MR. LICHTMAN: Pm going to let Mr. Sta ne 3 believing that DUI Clinton was on the airpla other 1 3 go first. he wanU mo to go 4 with Mr. Epste in and these young svernan and MR. SCHERER: I thick and 4 5 parsonages, I can't remember who they are, 5 first. 6 all seas of other allegations that really were 6 TIM COURT: AU right. 7 not even related to the LM case. 7 MR. SCHERER: Your Honor, in November 8 And to the extent that any lawyers from t and we allege d 8 we filed a lawsuit in State Cour 9 the RRA finn, former lawyer., made a ton of money wad 9 that as a part of Mr. Rothstein and the Cam, 10 or howe ver Mr. Farmer talked about it, we're the 10 the firm's employees, and maybe some of II Intere sted in that ton of money be-mots if they in/LM 11 fm's attorneys, conspired to use the Epste 12 were Involv ed in this scheme, this fraud, there's 12 litigation in order to lure S13.5 million worth 13 a crime fraud excep tions. and in addition, 1 want 13 of my victims, my clients, into making 14 to see the ten boxes that they brought down. 14 investments in those phoney settlements . 15 The truste e does not have those too 15 And as we alleged in that State Court 16 boxes . Those ton boxes were taken by Mr. Edwards tions 16 proceeding, and we've sharpened the allega 17 when he /oft the law firm, 1 presume. So we want that 17 tu we've emended a few dunes, we allege wore 18 the tea boxes , we want all the communications and 18 sometime in late October, that my clients 19 we want to look through everything on behalf of 19 Invited into the Rothstein firm with 20 my State Court case, but also on behal or,' f of the a 20 Mr. Rothstein, arid be explained that he had rds 21 credit or? comm ittee brosnse the credit Edwa 21 litigation going in State Court with Mr. 22 committee is looking to see If argbody else In in, and 22 representing LM, a victim of Mr. Epste and 23 the firm, other than Roths tein, was Involv ed In 23 these are kind of sensational allegations 24 this manias fraud that used the Epstein case. 24 it's been printed widely. 25 The model of using an existing case and 25 And my clients, a number of them and rep is same rence then spbming off a fraud from it is the their lawyer, wont into the Rothstein confe 2 that was perpe trated on the Mors e — in the Morse down — summoned 2 room and Mr. Rothstein brought 3 simile°, as has been allege d and widel y or three of 3 the investigators, two of them, two 4 produced. the Epste in file. And the 4 them, to bring down a national S I can't conceive that Mr. Edwards and 5 lawyer that my clients brought from 6 the prede cessor law firm would have any standing of them that 6 firm, went through the Ltd boxes, tan 7 to prepa privilege logs or anything be like re else, given broug ht down , and concluded 7 the inves tigato rs case, 8 what 1just told the Court. That would 8 that the Epstein case was a real That Epstein 9 having the fox guard the hen house,the ton 9 And what Mr. Rothstein did with that 10 case Is settled, and to the exten t Ifs everybody that 10 real case, of causes, Is he told II boxes of stuff that we looked throu gh, and I'll client of II not only did he have the LM er of other 12 hove to got the boxes to see If Ow attorn ey who 12 Mr. Edwards, that there were a numb in the 13 looked through them, and bow much time he spent g ladies , that was widel y publi shed 13 youn senting and 14 Iooldng through them — 14 newspaper, that the firm was repre on Is THE COURT: Where arc the tan boxes ? Epstein 15 that wanted to settle with Mr. 16 MR.. SCHE RER: Theta a good question. . I 16 confidential basis. 17 Its trustee does not have the ten boxes 17 So ho used the real ease In order to 18 presume the ten boxes are residing with the Into those rds and the 18 defraud my clients into investing a half million 19 lawyers who took the case, Mr. Edwanot have 13 and 19 phoney settlements and paid 20 siren s°, law firm. The truste e does tein and others 20 dollen. I believe that Mr. Roths 21 them. And then In addition, there' s about 6,000 In the firm also told that story toe lot of the truste e has, and I bet you when 21 peopl e 22 amalle that a lot of other boatload 22 other peopl e, end let of the real case. 23 we look at Qtask, theses going to be a 23 examine those ton boxes 24 more. 24 In addition, as wo have alleged, that 25 My clients were also advised darin g put sensational 25 Mr. Edwards and the firm 5 Vega 17 to 20) REPORTERS, OUELLETTE & MA EFTA01069417 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 6 of 10 hp 71 ?err is their duo diligence, short due diligence to I to take those ten boxes to taut with. 2 settle these cases with these young ladles — 2 THE COURT: All tight. Mr. ',Salami:ix 3 these putative, young ladies who had to get the 3 MR. LIC7dTMAN: Good mondog, Judge. I'm 4 money and leave town because of whatever the 4 going to try to walk you through sort of 5 stories were, that thorn were other members of 5 chronologiadly the trustee's perspective of what has 6 the finis that told my clients that they, We'd 6 happened here. I think that what Tye hoard from all 7 had oven identifiod more of those victims that 7 the parties are comments that are coned, and not 8 Ms. Rothstein didn't even know about at that 8 necessarily corral, and Pm not suggesting 9 time. So we know it vAun't just Mr. Rothstein 9 falsehoods. Wo just hava kind of a dif keens 10 spinning the tale, there ware a lot of people in 10 perspective of some things and there are some points 11 the firm. II that ought to ha ccmaotcd. We've alleged almost all of this in our 12 Mr. Stettin received a subpoena in a 12 13 State Court action that we filed lo November, vp 13 Palm Basch State Court action for production of 14 to where we are right now, but, your Honor, I 14 documents, and as wo had done in virtually every 15 think your Honor Is going to have to deal with 15 subpoena, we went to our forensic accountants, 16 these issues in this court and I would urge you 16 the Berkowitz Dick Pollack & Brant Croat, and 17 to have the trustee got involved end let the 17 said, okay, we need to produce c-malls and we 18 trustee do its job with respect to whether there 18 need to also then, with the staff that wo have at 19 are privileges that need to be protected, work 19 Berger Singetman and elsewhere, and look to see 20 product or attorney/olient privileges, given 20 if there am any hard documents that we can find, 21 what's going on, and I believe the vista will 21 notwithstanding what we'll call the Issues as to 22 be investigating whether the trustee wants to 22 the RRA hard drive that contain client files. 23 We quickly realized that this is a 23 bring any clams on behalf of the estate by 24 Islam different than all of tho other subpoenas. 24 virtue of what I'verjust laid out for you. 'Munk you. 25 The subpoenas that we had bean receiving from 25 Utz virtually every other party in the case were THE COURT: So your lawsuit In State Court 2 requests for production of documents relarrd to 2 names these people as defendants? MR. SCHERER: It names Rothstein. It 3 claims that those moving parties or requesting 3 4 parties would have as it pertains to them trying 4 does not name Mr. Edwards. It just names to S to recover some aspect of money as pertained 5 Rothstein, not the Eng and lays out the foots 6 the Penal scheme. 6 and says other people in the firm. We did not Okay. Like Mr. Scherer, who said I 7 7 name them because we want to see the documents 8 need a bunch of dOCUMenth cat you help us? So 8 and see whether they had Involvement But the facts that I have alleged for 9 we would enter Into, on a ono by one bads, a 9 10 proactive order that was very, very tightly to you, your Honor, Is pretty much what Tye alleged 11 negotiated. These is no standard form protective nt in 11 In my first through third amended complai 12 order In this case, contrary to what everybody 12 Stale Court. THE COURT: So, In essence, your position 13 has told you. We have a form that wo use, and 13 14 everybody that las come to us, we said, wo need 14 in this manta- would be to support the motion to e order? IS to have a protective order in place — Is compel and deny the motion for protectiv id THE COURT: We have Docket Entry 672, which MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, notwithstanding 16 I 17 apparently Is the document production protocol. 17 that Mr. Epstein 1$ a convicted pedophile. 18 MR- LK:117MM: We have that, yes, bat then 18 want to ma that on rho record. You know, he's 19 we also, as an example, Document 685, have ■ support the 19 served his time and whatever, but I the 20 protectiv e order that was entered with Mr. Schuas 20 same position that he — that be has asked 21 atoms. Wo haves as cm estesnple, Document 715 that 21 Court, and that is to have the trustee deal with 22 this, get these documents and deal with it with V pertains to MS Capital, and on end on. 23 Sq in any event, what we mansions 23 you, rather than allow the successor law firm to 24 the case with respect to the Epstein vs. Scott 24 have thcm. 23 Rothstein, &milky Edwards case, h this Is 25 I don't know where they had the right • 6 (Payee 21 to24 °UM-LETTS & MA REPORTERS, EFTA01069418 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 7 of 10 hit n P&P 25 1 MR. LICHTMAN: Qtask La nut pint of this 1 different. This Is not an asset either to the 2 RRA estate, nor Is it really an asset to any 2 equation as of rigid now. Now, it may bo, cud Nero 3 potential creditor of the RRA estate that Is 3 still trying to get that. I'm just talking about 4 inveatigating dal= that can tiring a recovery 4 internal c-malls where we would put ins name search, 5 that can hely in terms of the overall dollars 5 give it to the Berkowitz ram and sq.run an e-mall 6 into either RRA or to a particular creditor on 6 search on the following names. 7 And when we realized the volume of 7 their individual lawsuits. 8 The Epstein case, rather, is a lawsuit 8 work, and you can imagine, you know, Ile from a 9 between a third party that was being sued by the 9 ream of payer, 500 sheets of paper, and you 0 Rothstein firm against Rothstein lawyers, and we 10 multiply that out raid you get to 12 roams of that 11 paper, takes up a lot of paper, it takes up a 1 bad a different privilege Issue than we had 12 tremendous amount of time. This Is not en =set 2 focused on with all these other document 3 productions. 13 of the estate that we can, if we have to, warrant So we get the 6,000 o-malls, and on the 14 doing the work, the hard work, as we've done on 4 15 many of the other claims, some of which already 5 eve of one of my concaves getting ready to 16 are before you for settlement purposes. This is 6 enter into — either enter into one of these 17 a liability to the estate and an expensive one. 7 protective orders or say, here, take them, like So wo really didn't went to go through 8 we've done with eve ybody else, we looked up and 18 19 the undertaking of having to protect the 9 Mr. Stettin and k said, time out. Wo havoc 20 privilege, though wo would, and candidly, 20 legitimate privilege issue here. And I want to be clear, we don't want 21 Epstein's counsel has said we'll pay you to do 21 22 it, but then there's also the manpower issue 22 to come anywhere close to stepping In the mess of 23 bemuse wo era pressed very bard to get certain 23 waiving attorney/client privilege, unless and 24 adverse:los moving as quickly as we can and we're 24 until the Court tells us to, end f want to also 25 fighting a lot of battles on a lot of different 25 be clear, we wish we weren't hero. Wo would 1.4*25 Trot 25 1 grounds, we still really don't vrant to do that prefer not to have a fight on any of this stuff 2 and also because we dont brow the Epstein case 2 and on one hand, we don't care who does the 3 well enough to be able to assess what is 3 privilege log and who gets the documents, and on 4 privileged, what is not. and preparing a 4 the other hand, because of some things that 5 privilege log the proper way is really a time 5 Mr. Schtrerjust commented on, that I learned 6 consuming mess, 6 literally today, and because of the common 7 Sol teed flap for both aides and have 7 Interest agreement that everybody knows we 8 said, here's what Fm willing to do. Puking 8 with Mr. Scherer and the commit tee, in some 9 aside the issue as to really whether or not the 9 respects, !don't think h prudent for rat to IO Court does have jurisdiction on a State Court 10 discuss why I would want to look at some of those 11 subpoena, which ultimately I leave to you, wo 11 documents. 12 said, were still willing to enter into a But be that as it may, we found that we 12 one 13 modified version of the protective order that 13 there were 6,000 smalls and this was the 14 gave to you, which effectiv ely provides the 14 time that rather than go through the usual 15 additional language of no claims can be brought protective 15 protocol of preparing the stipulated that 16 against Mr. Stettin or the estate if we produce 16 order that is effectively a mirror Image of 17 these documents. which is provided by Federal Rule of Evidenc e 17 is a need for a real privileg e 18 We doe't really have a tom to pick in IS 502, we said there 19 this mess, we just want to make sure that we 19 log here. 20 follow all of the ethical boundaries required by There aro 6,000 e-mails, give or take, 20 21 Florida law, by rules of professional conduct. 21 and we quickly assessed that the time to review 22 We don't wish to ner'es•nrily waive somebody 22 6,000 e-mails, this could not be done by a 23 else's privilege. We don't think that's 23 paralegal, it would have to bo done by a lawyer. 24 necessarily prudent, but we really don't want to THE COURT: Does this include Qtask or is 24 25 have a fight in this battle, end we wanted the 25 this in addition to? n, ...nav e.. V •• 7 (Por.s2.51c 2 ) 141,4 • oupnErnia nisiiii REPORTERS, INC. EFTA01069419 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 8 of 10 Pia 31 Pap ID Court to approve — whatever It is you went as to 1 they had been counsel for LM and others in 2 do, to toll you the truth, were happy to do. We 2 litigation respecting Epstein, and that we 3 just want to make sure that Mr. Stettin is 3 assumed that they would have been files they 4 personally insulated and that the estate is 4 would wort; and B, because at the dine that thls 5 Insulated in whatever it b — 5 matter on the subpoena temp before the State 6 TUB COURT: All 1see is — 6 Court judge, we stood outside the courtroom and 7 MR. UCHTMAN: — you direct 7 here's what happened. I was effectively going to 8 711E COURT: — the potraitil ofa claim S toll the State Court judge basically the same 9 against Stettin and des estate for breach of the 9 story Tye told you in complete detail and say, 10 attorney/client privilege. 10 we don't really care. We just want to make sure 11 MR. LiCliTMAN: correct. 11 Mr. Stettin Is promoted and the estate is 12 THE COURT: So the hub — 12 protected. MR. LICHTMAN: And hence the dilemma. 13 And we bad reached an agreement that 13 14 THE COURT: — for the claim Is there. 14 day, which was we were going to turn over the 15 MR. LICHTMAN: Yeah, right, hence the 15 boxes to Mr. Formes firm and we wore going to 16 give e-malls to them, end they were going to do 16 dilemma. Now wo come to the issue of hard 17 the privilege log because that would save us a 17 18 documents because the e-mails are ono thing, and 18 ton of time, important time, and as important, a 19 lot ofmoney to the estate, and we did not wish 19 1had a number of oonvereadons candidly with 20 Ms. Sanchez, where I think that we had told her 20 to burden the creditors of the estate with legal 21 fees for putting together the privilege log, so 21 originally we had heard taro wore, as en 22 it was agreed that we would do that. 22 example, some loan files or transaction files 23 1, personally, reiterated the terms to 23 related to Ponzl deals milted to Mr. Epstein, 24 all the lawyers that were standing outside the 24 because 1renumber myself even hearing that going 25 courtroom, as to what was to be reflected in a 25 book many, many, many months ago. hp 32 Faye 311 Suffice it to say, that 1have I written order because I didn't want to leave it 2 to cameo as to what was agmed on. 2 conducted a very thorough discussion, without Since it to say, when the lawyers for 3 3 waiving our internal privileges or work product. 4 Mr. Efrain and the lawyers for Mr. Edwards were 4 and we can't find those, and it appears as if 5 teak to try to reduce to writing that which was 5 they really did not exist, that what had occulted 6 In part agreed upon outside the courtroom, they 6 is that somehow Epstein was listed on a sheet for 7 were unabk to do so, and that teed up the filing 7 a potential deal that non closed, 8 of the motion before you to compel us to produce 8 hi terms of the ten boxes of dcaments, early on 9 the a-malls and the documents. 9 one of the function, the trustee served wish to reiterate, 1think that 10 in the cue was to facilitate transfers of 11 Mr. Scherer has shared something with me that we It files — 2 need to investigate and will, and I was assure 12 THE COURT. I remember that. MR. LICHINIAN: - from two attorneys that 3 of that literally until I rode up the elevator 13 4 with him this morning. And 1don't wish to spend 14 were }ladling oases. Al right. I had a general 5 more time ou It thm that right now, but I take were picked up 15 understanding that most of the files 16 him at his word because an awful lot of what I've firm because they were continuing on 16 by the Farmer 17 seen him work on so far has borne fruit. made some 17 with that litigation, and that would have 1 I don't care what you want us to do. there were 18 sense, but then we had also beard that 19 All I want to know is that at the end 1 can walk 19 some boxes that ware left behind. 20 out of court with an order that protects the I believe there are two boxes, I'm not 20 we may 2 1 estate and protects Mr. Stettin. So I have told 21 positive of that, two boxes I think that 22 you the story and leave it to you to fluke° what 22 still have, and I'm pretty sure we've sent 23 remedy you think appropriate. 23 e-malle a couple oftimes to the Fanner firm 24 If I can answer any questions, rm 24 saying, come get your documents, 25 happy 25 Now, why would wo do tar/ A, because 8 (Page.29 to 32 OUELLETTE le MA REPORTERS, INC. EFTA01069420 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLED Docket 09/02/2010 Page 9 of 10 hot 33 rasa 11413 COURT: Well, the trustee knows what MR. FARMER: Yes, your Honor. Just vay 2 the trustee has, obviously. 2 briefly. I thank you for the opportunity to address 3 MR. LICHTMAN; Yes. 3 the Court again. 1just wanted to clear something 4 THE COURT: So the trustee Is capable of 4 up, your Honor. Understand that when this all 5 preparing a log °Isabel he has. 5 happened, there were six of us now who ma partners, 6 MR. L1CH'TMAN: Meaning we have the 6 who had dozens and dozens of omgolog cases. 7 following data. 7 THE COURT: I remember we held hearings and 8 THE COURT: Yes. 8 1 authorized the truetee MR. LICHIMAN: Yes, wo can do that. 9 MR. EARNIBRi And you authorized, yet 10 THE COURT: Then the parties can than argue 10 111B COURT: to deliver the information :1 whether or not that is subject to privilege. The 11 so the lawyers could continue to represent the :2 plaintiff can still get from Mr, Fenner and his 12 clients. 13 clients in the State Cowt discovery. The discovery 13 MR. FARMER: h just seemed to be maybe :4 being sought bete D from the trustee — 14 suggested hero today that something untoward <mewed 15 MR. L1CJITMAN: Comet 15 as far es the moon' of these boxes. Those WON 16 THE COURT: — and would be subject to the 16 litigation files, pleadings, Invesilgaive reports, 17 trustees responsibility for the privilege log 17 all of thao things. 18 because of his potential liability. 18 So we needed to get on with those 19 MR. LICHTMAN: Yes, and I think you 19 ones, but I think you've heard now from the 20 understand, though, why If we can somehow deflect 20 trustee that this trot en asset and it Ss an 21 that responsibility, because of the extreme amount of 21 expense. I still thick that we me the paw who 22 cost and time to do that, we would be happy to do 22 should prepare this privilege log• We are most 23 that because, you know, otherwise, we submit the 23 familiar — 24 petitions that show a nemer.dous amount of time on 24 THE COURT: Weill, no, if I appoint a 25 something that doesn't produce an asset to the 25 imolai nook; you will have an input into that Aze rep 36 1 estate, just a liability. special molter and you'll have an opportunity to be 2 THE COURT: Right. This is not an asset of 2 heard before me before I authorize the release of the 3 the stab. 3 Information, beams ultimately the order that's 4 MR. L1CHTMAN: No, ifa.hat 4 going to authorize the release of the information is 5 THE COURT: But could he a substantial 5 going to provide protection to the tmsteo and the 6 liability. 6 estate. 7 MR. LICHTMAN: Hence the diltaurus 7 MR. FARMER: And, thank you, Judge, I Jost 8 THE COURT: Well, I can appoint a special 8 wanted to make sure, and 1 was going to request, that 9 master to do it at the expense of the movant end not we have an opportunity to review whatever the master 10 release the information until the special master 10 does and if we think they've salad a privilege or 11 reports back to me and I authorise the release. I1 are wrong In an assertion, that we have an 12 What 1propose to do by my authorizing 12 opportuniV to address that. 13 the release — I'm sorry, Stettin, as trustee, to 13 THE COURT: There is going to be a hearing 14 release the information, I would, therefore, be 14 before the information gets released. 15 protecting the estate from any claims for the 15 MR. FARMER: Understood. Thank you, your 16 release of that i aromatic°. 16 Honor. 17 MR. LICH-MAN: We would be happy to do 17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Liehmuln 18 that, your Honor, and lm; 1don't wish to speak 18 LICHIMAN: Yen. 19 for the Epstein lawyers, they actually offered to pay 19 THE COURT: — I watt you to prepare the 20 time for us doing that, and 1said, well, you know, 20 order. I'm going to continua the hearing on the two 21 that's pert of the equation, the other port Is — 21 motions, Docket Entry 807 and 819, and I'm going to 22 THE COURT: No, no, no, I can appoint a 22 have you draft en order appointing a special master, 23 special master. 23 the expense of which will be borne by the Epstein 24 MR. L1CHTMAN: Yee. 24 movaots. The 'pedal master will meet with both 25 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Farmer, 25 skies, Epstein and Edwards, and then with the 9 Vasa 33 to 36) 002.1.flITE & MA Ith.Pos CTRS, INC. EFTA01069421 ' Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 10 of 10 Par 37 1 mulct, and will prepare a privilege legi t* 1 2 Pisan1 2 release of which will be noticed for hearing in front 3 CERTIPICAllON 3 ofme. 4 MR. LICHTMAN: Do I pick the special roaster 45 STATE OF FLORIDA: 5 or do you? 6 COUNTY OF DADE: 6 THB COURT: You eau-- If you all can — 1 7 7 hate to use the word woe,but if you all can agree, 3 1, Margaret Franzen, Shorthanel Repoeter fin e. If you cant give me thee eeilieS 9 end Notary Public in and for the Stale ofHeads 8 that's 9 to choose from. 10 at Largo, do hereby certify that the Beeping 10 MR. LICHTMAN: Okay 11 proceedings were taken before rue lathe date and THE COURT : You're going to have to check 12 place as natal In the caption hereto on Page I; 11 that the foregoing amperes-aided transcription Is quote, "specia l master" to make sure they 13 12 with this, strut record of my stenagrepWo noes taken at geld the privative log. 14 13 have the lime to review 15 prceocefi ngs. MR. LICHTMAN: The docume nts. 14 WITNESS my laud this 5th day of 15 THE COURT: And it has to be somebody that 16 17 August, 2010. 16 doesn't have a conflict ofInterest. IS 17 MR. LICHTMAN: Right. Okay. 19 THE COURT: All rig ht. Run the order by 20 IS 19 Mr.Neiwitth sad Mr. Partner. Margaret Franzen 20 MR. LICHTMAN: Thank you. 21 Court Reporter andNotary Public 21 MR. FARMER: Thank you, your Honor. in and for the State of Florida at Mega 22 MR. NEINVIF tTH: Your Honor, may it please 22 My Controls:Mon P4Ires: April 14, 2014 23 the Court7 23 24 THE COURT: Yee. 24 NBIWIR TH: Can we say somethi ng about 25 25 MR. tait 34 now we 1 the time frame because as we sit here right 2 still have a Mal coming in October. 3 THE COURT: Well, I understand thut, but 1 cases 4 probably have between five and 6,000 active even now and within the Rothste in ease, I don't 5 right matters are 6 know how many adversaries and contested 7 pending. 1111 get to it as soon as t can. s B ot you can proceed to obtain the 9 in Comedia n from Edwards and LM in the State 0 Court proceed ing. All Pm governing Is what the I trustee is going to Meese from the debtor 2 estate. 3 All right. Mr. Lichtroso, see to the 4 order. 5 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, your Honor. 6 MR. FARMER.: Thank you fur yew time,your 7 Honor. 8 MR. NEIWIRTH: Thank you, Judge. 9 (T)rernsupor4 the hearing was concluded) 20 21 22 23 24 25 . - 10 (Pages 37 Co 39) R13PORTERS, INC °mums &Masi* EFTA01069422 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 3 Doc 888 Filed 08/13/10 Pagel of 3 Case 09-34791-RBR of Florida on ORDERED In the Southern District Raymond B. Ray, Judge United status Bankruptcy Court RT UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COU SOU THE RN DIST RICT OF FLO RIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVLSION www.flsbuscourtssov CASE NO.: 09.34791-RER IN RE: P.A., CHAVIER 11 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, Debtor. OF ORDER RESPECTING PRODUCTION aEG ARD ING JEFF REY EPS TEIN pOCUMTNIS Motion to hearing on August 4, 2010 upon (i) MIS CAUSE came before the Court fbr uction Protocol, as Trustee Pursuant to Document Prod Compel Production of Documents from Interested Party (11) Motion for Protective Order filed by established by D.E. #672 (D.E. 47307); s sod Lehrman, P.L. ("Pawner, Jaffe") (D.E. itsis) and Parma, Jaffe, Waissing, Edwards, lento scl present at the The Court heard argument of au cowt its related amendment (D.E. #819). In the promises, bearing, and being otherwise duly advised EFTA01069423 Case 9:08-cv-80893•KAM Document 214-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 2 of 3 Flied 08/13/10 Page 2 of 3 Case 09-3479141BR Doc 888 DOES HEREBY ORDER: ty Circuit Judge Robert Carney as I. The Court appoints former fireweed Coun nsive to for the Trustee to obtain documents respo Special Master who shall work with counsel lly stored feffrey Epstein to: (i) review all electroake the subpoena served upon the Ttustee by data for the Trustee's possession, including Qtask information ("EST) and other documents in privileges that the attorney/client and work product purposes of determining the applicability of ts of Farmer, Edwards, and other current or former clien may inure to the benefit of L.M., Brad privilege log in leged documents: and (iii) prepare a Jaffe; (ii) segregate any such privi accordance with standard practice and law. the Special Muter shall meet with 2. Prior to engaging in this document review, their respective Jaffe and counsel for the Trustee to bear counsel for Epsteiu, counsel for Farmer, ial Muter, the completion of the review by the Spec positions concerning these matters. Upon or BSI shall lege log with the Court. No documents Special Master shall prepare and file a privi Court that he has the Special Master has notified the be released to anyone until such lime as t to the Court his documents and is in a position to repor concluded his review of the responsive Special Master, , Upon the filing of such notice by the findings and to obtain further Instruction AU legal fees pending motions identified above. the Court shall set a continued hearing On the d to pay directly shall be paid by Epstein, who has agree and COsill incurred by the Special Master all such foes and costs. #111 2 EFTA01069424 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 3 of 3 10 Pegs 3 of 3 Casa 09-34791-FtBR Doc 838 Flied 08/1W 5ubmine4 by: Charles H. Lichtrnau, Esq. B/3RGER S1NGERMAN, PA, 350 East Las Olaf Boulevard, Suite 1000 Pat Laud a 3 1 Teleph . .one: to ern Copy furnished to: Charles H. Lichiman, Esq. to all parties of mitres and tofile a (Charles IL Lichtotan is directed to serve this Order Certificate of Service.) 3 EFTA01069425 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 207-1 Entered on FLSD Do..,Ket 07/19/2010 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-C1V- 80893 — MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. Order Adopting and Entering Joint Stipulation This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff, Jane Doe, and Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Joint Stipulation, and counsel being in agreement with the entry of the Stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. The Joint Stipulation is hereby Adopted and Entered. 2. Without in any way altering the obligations set forth in the Addenda to Settlement Agreements entered into in the above-styled matter and in the matters of vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028051 XXXXMB AB and ■. vs. Epstein, CASE NO. 502008 CA028058 XXXXMB AB, Counsel may wish to use the Correspondence in pending cases of Epstein v. Rothstein, CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG and In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2, CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. If Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case) desires to file, use or disclose the Correspondence or contents thereof to anyone, Counsel agrees that prior to using any of the Correspondence in these proceedings or prior to providing or making the Correspondence available to anyone else, that they will provide seven (7) days notice to EFTA01069426 Case £:08-cv-80893-KAM L.ocument 207-1 Entered on F LSD Du„net 07/19/2010 Page 2 of 2 Epstein's counsel (Robert D. Critton, Jr. at and Michael J. Pike at of their intent to use or provide the Correspondence or in the alternative, file the Correspondence under seal. 3. If Epstein chooses to serve an objection based on a claim that the Correspondence should remain confidential, his objection must be served within seven (7) days from the date of the notice, If Epstein does serve an objection, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) will not file (unless filed under seal) nor disclose the Correspondence to the public or third parties until the court has ruled on the objection. However, Counsel (or Mr. Edwards as a defendant) may file the Correspondence under seal or provide the Correspondence to the court for an in camera inspection if any objection is made such that the court is in a position to rule on the objection. DONE and ORDERED this day of , 2010. Linnea R. Johnson United States Magistrate Judge Courtesy Copies: Judge Kenneth Marra Counsel of Record EFTA01069427