84. The civil cases Edwards filed against Epstein on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane
Doe were reasonably perceived by Edwards to be very strong cases. Because Epstein had
35
sexually assaulted these girls, he had committed several serious torts against them and would be
liable to them for appropriate damages.
See Preceding Undisputed Facts. Because of the
outrageousness of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, Edwards reasonably expected that
Epstein would also be liable for punitive damages to the girls. Because Edwards could show that
Epstein had molested children for years and designed a complex premeditated scheme to procure
different minors everyday to satisfy his addiction to sex with minors, the punitive damages
would have to be sufficient to deter him from this illegal conduct that he had engaged in daily for
years. Epstein was and is a billionaire. See Complaint, ¶49 (referring to "Palm Beach
Billionaire'); see also Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 172-176 (Deposition
Attachment #7) (taking the Fifth when asked whether he is a billionaire). Accordingly, Edwards
reasonably believed the punitive damages that would have to be awarded against Epstein would
have been substantial enough to punish him severely enough for his past conduct as well as deter
him from repeating his offenses in the future. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "I\T” at ¶19.
85. On July 6, 2010, rather than face trial for the civil suits that had been filed against
him by L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, defendant Epstein settled the cases against him. The kilns of
the settlement are confidential. The settlement amounts are highly probative in the instant action
as Epstein bases his claims that Edwards was involved in the Ponzi scheme on Epstein's inability
to settle the L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe cases for "minimal value". His continued inability to
settle the claims for "minimal value' after the Ponzi scheme was uncovered would be highly
probative in discrediting any causal relationship between the Ponzi scheme and Edwards's
settlement negotiations. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit 'IT' at ¶21.
Edwards Non-Involvement in Fraud by Scott Rothstein
36
86. From in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein
appears to have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law funi of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A.
("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement
agreements had been reached with putative defendants based upon claims of sexual harassment
and/or whistle-blower actions.
Rothstein falsely infoinied the investors that the potential
settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Scott
W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit "SS."
87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used to lure investors
into his Ponzi scheme were the cases against Epstein that were being handled by Bradley J.
Edwards, Esq. Edwards had no knowledge of the fraud or any such use of the Epstein cases. See
Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶9.
88. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., joined RRA in about April 2009 and left RRA in
November 2009 — a period of less than one year. Edwards would not have joined RRA had he
been aware that Scott Rothstein was running a giant Ponzi scheme at the firm. Edwards left
RRA shortly after learning of Rothstein's fraudulent scheme. Id. at ¶8.
89. At no time prior to the public disclosure of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme did Edwards
know or have reason to believe that Rothstein was using legitimate claims that Edwards was
prosecuting against Epstein for any fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate purpose. Id. at ¶20.
90. Edwards never substantively discussed the merits of any of his three cases against
Epstein with Rothstein. See Deposition of Bradley J. Edwards taken March 23, 2010, at 110-16.
(hereinafter "Edwards Depo") (Deposition Attachment #22).
37
91. On July 20, 2010, Bradley Edwards received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's
Ponzi scheme. The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had deteamined that Edwards
was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter infolined
Edwards of his rights as a victim of Rothstein's fraud and promised to keep Edwards informed
about subsequent developments in Rothstein's prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit
"TT."
92. Jeffrey Epstein filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards,
Esq., raising allegations that Edwards and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott
Rothstein. After investigating the claim, the Florida Bar dismissed this complaint. See Edwards
Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶23.
Epstein Takes the Fifth When Asked Substantive Questions About His Claims Against Edwards
93. On March 17, 2010, defendant Epstein was deposed about his lawsuit against
Edwards.
Rather than answer substantive questions about his lawsuit, Epstein repeatedly
invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege.
See Epstein Depo. taken 3/17/10, Deposition
Attachment #1.
94. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question:
"Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?"
Id. at 34.
95. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than name people in California that
Edwards had tried to depose to increase the settlement value of the civil suit he was handling. Id.
at 37.
38
96. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you
know former President Clinton personally." Id.
97. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Are you
now telling us that there were claims against you that were fabricated by Mr. Edwards?" Id. at
39..
98. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question, "Well,
which of Mr. Edwards' cases do you contend were fabricated." Id.
99. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "What is
the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?" Id. at 45.
100. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer a question about the
actual value of the claim of L.M. and Jane Doe against him. Id.
101. In his deposition, taken prior to the settlement of Edwards's clients claims against
Epstein, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there any pending claim
against you which you contend is fabricated?" Id. at 71.
102. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you
ever have damaging evidence in your garbage?" Id. at 74.
103. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did
sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?" Id. at 88.
104. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Does a
flight log kept for a private jet used by you contain the names of celebrities, dignitaries or
international figures?" Id. at 89.
39
105. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized.with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at
89.
106. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id. at
90.
107. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18T Id. at 91-
92.
108. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you
ever socialize with David Copperfield in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at
109. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Mr. Richardson [Governor of New Mexico and formerly U.S.
Representative and 'Ambassador to the United Nations] in the presence of females under the age
of 18." Id. at 94.
110. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever sexually abused children?" Id. at 95.
111. In hiS deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you
have staff members that assisted you in scheduling appointments with underage females; that is,
females under the age of 18." Id. at 97-98.
112. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "On how
many occasions did you solicit prostitution." Id. at 102.
40
113. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How
many minors have you procured for prostitution?" Id. at 104.
114. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever coerced, induced or enticed any minor to engage in any sexual act with you?" Id. at
107.
115. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How
many times have you engaged in fondling underage females?" Id. at 108.
116. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How
many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" Id. at 110.
117. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you
have a personal sexual preference for children?" Id. at 111-12.
118. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Your
Complaint at page 27, paragraph 49, says that `RRA and the litigation team took an emotionally
driven set of facts involving alleged innocent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach
billionaire, and sought to turn it into a goldmine,' end of quote. Who is the Palm Beach
billionaire referred to in that sentence?" Id. at 112-13.
119. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Who are
the people who are authorized to make payment [to your lawyers] on your behalf?" Id. at 120.
120. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there
anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you
contend to be false?" Id. at 128.
41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November
, 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been
served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list.
Jack Scarola
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
(561) 686- $0
(561 (fax)
By:
JAC AROLA
Flo ar No.: 169440
42
SERVICE LIST
Christopher E. Knight, Esq.
Joseph L. Ackerman, Esq.
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.
901 Phillips Point West
777 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger et al.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Marc S. Nurik, Esq.
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Gary M. Farmer, Jr.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
43
DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Epstein v. Edwards, et al.
Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800200UMBAG
HII
AFFIDAVIT OF RADLEY JAMES EDWARDS
1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the
Southern District of Florida. I am currently a partner in the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
2. In 2008, I was a sole practitioner running a perso injury law l„ in Hollywood, FL.
While a sole practitioner I was retained by three clients, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe to
pursue civil litigation against Je ey Epstein for sexually abusing them while ey were
inor girls. I agreed to represent these girls, along wi y. attorney Jay Howell (an
attorney in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul
Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I filed s e court
actions on behalf of L.M. and E.W. and a federal court action on behalf of Jane Doe.
All of the cases were filed in the summer of 2008.
3. My clients received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding
their rights as victims of Epstein's federal sex offenses. (True and accurate copies of
the letters are attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "M")
4. mid June 2008, I contacted Assistant United States Attorney Marie Villafafia to
inform her I represented Jane Doe #1(E.W.) and, later, Jane Doe #2(L.M.). I asked
to meet to provide information regarding Epstein. AUSA Villafafia did not advise me
that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would
block federal prosecution. AUSA Villafafia 'd indicate that federal inve 'gators h
concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested at least 40
underage rainor females, including EN., Jule Doe and L.M.
5. I also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information and evidence that they
had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S.
Attorney's Office declined to provide any such information to me. The U.S. Attorney's
Office also declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who
represented victims of Epstein's sexusl assaults.
6. I was informed that on Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA
Villafafia received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the
plea was scheduled for 8:30 a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. She called me to provide
notice to my clients regarding the hearing. She did not tell me that the guilty pleas in
state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the
plea agreement. My clients did not learn and understand this fact until July 11, 2008,
when the agreement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the
Crime Victims' Rights Act action that I had filed.
7. In the summer of 2008 I filed complaints against Jeffwy Epstein on behalf of L.M.,
E.W., and Jane Doe.
8. In the Spring of 2009 (approximately April), I joined the law farm of Rothstein,
Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). I brought my existing clients with me when I
joined RRA, including L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. When I joined the firm, I was not
aware that Scott Rothstein was running a Ponzi scheme at RRA. Had I known such a
Ponzi scheme was in place, I would never have joined RRA.
9. I am now aware that it has been alleged that Scott othstein made fraudulent
presentations to investors about the lawsuits that I had filed on be of my clients
against Epstein and that it has been alleged that these lawsuits were used to fraudulently
lure investors into Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. I never met a single investor, h: no part
in any such presentations and had no knowledge any such fraud was occurring. If these
allegations are true, I had no knowledge any such fraudulent presentations were
occurring and no kn wledge of any such improper use of the case files.
10. Epstein's Complaint against me alleges that Rothstein made false statements about
cases filed against Epstein, i.e., that RRA 50 anonymous females who had filed suit
against Epstein; that Rothstein sold an interest in personal injury lawsuits, reached
agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers, paid clients ``tip front" money; and
that he used the judici process to further his Ponzi scheme. If Rothstein did any of
these things, I h no knowledge of his actions. Because I maintained close contact
with my clients, EW, LM and Jane Doe, and Scott Rothstein never met any of them, I
know for certain that none of my clients were paid ''up front" money by anyone.
11. Epstein alleges that I attempted to take the depositions of his "high profile friends and
accpnkintances" for no legitimate litigation purpose. This is untrue, as all of my actions
in representing L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were aimed at providing them effective
representation in their civil suits. With regard to Epstein's friends, through documents
and information obtained in discovery and other means of investigation, I learned that
Epstein was sexually itolesting 'nor girls on a daily basis and h been for many
years. I also learned the unsurprising fact that he was molesting the girls in the privacy
of his mansion in West Palm Beach, meaning that locating witnesses to corroborate
their testimony would be difficult to find. I also learned, from the course of the
litigation, that Epstein and his lawyers were constantly attacking the credibility of the
girls, that Epstein's employees were all represented by lawyers who apparently were
paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein, that co-conspirators whose represen :.tion
was also apparently paid for by Epstein were all taking the Fifth (like Epstein) rather
than provide information in discovery. For example, I was given reason to believe that
Sarah Kellen, Larry Visoski, Larry Harrison, David Rogers, Louella Rabuyo, Nadia
Marcinkova, Ghislaine Maxwell, Mark Epstein, and Janusz Banasiak all had lawyers
paid for by Epstein. Because Epstein and the co-conspirators in his child molestation
criminal enterprise blocked normal discovery avenues, I needed to search for other
ordinary approaches to strengthen the cases of my clients. Consistent with my training
and experience, these other ordinary approaches included finding other witnesses who
could corroborate allegations of sexual abuse of my clients or other girls. Some of these
witnesses were friends of Epstein. Given his social status, it also turned out that some
of his friends were high-profile. individuals.
12. In light of information I received suggesting that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell,
former girlfriend and long-time friend of Epstein's, was involved in managing Epstein's
affairs and companies I had her served for deposition for August 17, 2009. (Deposition
Notice attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit B). Maxwell was
represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of Cohen and Gresser, and I
understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was
reluctant to give her deposition, and I tried to work with her attorney to take her
deposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. er attorney and I
negotiated a confidentiality agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any
objections to the deposition. Maxwell, however, still avoided the deposition. On June
29, 2010, one y before I was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney
informed me that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently
flying to England with no inteh tion of returning and certainly would not return to the
United S tes before the conclusion of Jane Doe's trial period (August 6, 2010).
Despite that assertion, I later learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country
on approximately July 31, 2010, as she attended s e wedding of Chelsea Clinton
(former President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for US
Weekly 'magazine.
13. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Donald Trump's deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump was
properly noticed because: (a) after review of the message pads confiscated from
Epstein's home, the legal and investigative team assisting my clients learned that Trump
called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period
most relevant to my clients' complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article
about Epstein as saying "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy." "He's a lot
of fu a to be with. It is eve said that he likes beau I wo en as much as I do, and
a y of then are on the you ger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social
life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of
Nobel Prize—wi ning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite
Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Clinton,
Kevin Spacey, awed Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world
began to wonder who he is. By Lando Thomas Jr.; (c) I learned through a source
that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Pahn Beach because
Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's
complaint alleged that Jane Doe 102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by
Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (e)
Mark Epstein (Jefftzy Epstein's brother) testified that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's
plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have sex with
underage girls) deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009 at 48-50; (f) Trump
visited Epstein at his home in Palm Beach — the same home where Epstein abused
minor girls daily; (g) Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone
numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers
to Trump's security guard and houseman. Based on this information, I believed that
Trump might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein
and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
14. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Alan Dershowi's deposition in the civil suits against him. IDershowitz
was properly noticed because: (a) Dershowitz has been friends with Epstein for many
years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments t, "I'm on my 20th book... The
only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The
Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky Ward on J uary, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity
Fair; (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at
Epstein's house during the years most relev t to my clients; (d) Rodriguez testified
that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there
being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426
427); (e) Dershowitz was reportedly involved in persuading the Palm Beach State
Attorney's office ot to file felony criminal charges against Epstein because
underage females lacked credibility and thus could not be believed that they were at
Epstein's house, despite him being an eyewitness that the underage girls were actually
there; (f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually
exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, includhag royalty,
politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal
acquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into;
(g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on Epstein's plane on several
occasions according to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot and information
(described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the plane; (h)
Epstein donated Harvard $30 Million dollars one year, and Harvard was one of the only
institutions that did not return Epstein's donation after he was charged with sex offenses
against children. Based on this information, I believed that Dershowitz might have
relevant information to provide in e cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly
provided notice of a possible deposition.
15. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Bill Clinton's deposition. Clinton was properly noticed because: (a) it
was well known that Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and several witnesses
had provided information that Maxwell helped to run Epstein's companies, kept images
of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for
Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein,
and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child
pornography on her computer; (b) newpaper articles stated that Clinton had an affair
with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was thought to be second in charge of Epstein's child
molestation ring. The Cleveland Leader newspaper, April 10, 2009; (c) it was national
news when Clinton traveled with Epstein (and Maxwell) aboard Epstein's private plane
to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend; (d) the flight logs
for the relevant years 2002 - 2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on more
than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions; (e)
Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be sexually
exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty,
politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal
acquaintances" — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (f) flight
logs showed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah
Kellen, and Adriana Mucinska, -- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein's that
were closely .connected to Epstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse; (g) Clinton
frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped — raising the
suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to
Epstein's sexual abuse of children; (h) Epstein's personal phone directory from his
computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him,
including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be
Clinton's personal numbers. Based on this information, 1 believed that Clinton might
have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and
accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
16. Epstein alleges that Tommy Mottola was improperly noticed with a deposition. 1 did
not notice Mattola for deposition. He was noticed for deposition by a law firm
representing another one of Epstein's victims — not by me.
17. Epstein alleges that ere was something improper in the fact that 1 notified him
intended to take the illusionist David Copperfield's deposition. Copperfield was
properly noticed because: (a) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that
David Copperfield was a guest on several occasions Epstein's house; (b) according to
the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house, Copperfield called Epstein quite
frequently and left messages that indicated they socialized together; (c) Copperfield
himself has had similar allegations made against him by women claiming he sexually
abused them; (d) one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield
had touched her in an improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. eased on
this information, believed that Copperfield might have relevant information to provide
in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible
deposition.
18. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that 1 identified Bill
Richardson as a possible witness against him in the civil cases. Richardson was
properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to
Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. See deposition of Larry
Morrison, October 6, 2009, at 167-169. There was information indicating that Epstein
had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the
reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls since he had regularly and
frequently abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. Richardson had also
returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, in 'eating that he
believed that there was something about Epstein that he did not want to be associated
with. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify.
19. Epstein alleges that discovery of plane and pilot logs was improper during discovery in
the civil cases against him. Discovery of these subjects was clearly proper and
necessary because: (a) Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an
active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an
expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel.
Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation,
the legal team representing my clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal.
Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other
aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for
punitive damages; (b) Jane Doe also filed and was proceeding to trial on a federal claim
under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute which (unlike other state
statutes) guaranteed a minimum level of recovery for Jane Doe. Proceeding under the
statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two
grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his
use of the telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, seco d, his vel on planes
in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, I anticipated that Epstein
would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears
were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument. In
response, the other attorneys and I representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence
to res nd to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight logs
demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of
facilitating his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial,
Judge Marra did not rule on the summary judgment motion. (c) Jane Doe No. 102's
complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as
young as 12 years old and alleged that he used his plane to transport underage females
to be sexually abused by him and his friends. The flight logs accordingly rnight have
information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or 'ends
of Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this
information, I believed that the flight logs and related information was relevant
informatio to prove e cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly I pursued them
in discovery.
20. In approximately November 2009, the existence of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme
became public knowledge. It was at that time that I, o,i, g with many other reputable
attorneys at RRA, first became aware of Rothstein criminal scheme. At that time, I left
RRA with several other RRA attorneys to form the law firm of Farmer Jaffe Weissing
Edwards Fistos and Lehrman ("Farmer Jaffe"). I was thus with RRA for less than one
year.
21. In July 2010, along with other attorneys at Farmer Jaffe and Professor Cassell, I reached
favorable settlement terms for my three clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe in their
lawsuits against Epstein.
22. On July 20, 2010, I received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's Ponzi scheme.
The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that I was "a victim
(or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed me of my
rights as a victim of Rothstein's federal crimes and promised to keep me informed about
/01
subsequent developments in his prosecution. A copy of this letter is attached to this
Affidavit. (A copy of the letter is attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit
UU)
23. Jeffrey Epstein also filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against me. His complaint
alleged that I had been involved in Rothstein's scheme and had thereby violated various
rules of professional responsibility. The Florida Bar investigated and dismissed the
complaint.
24. I have reviewed the Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contem raneously with this
Affidavit. Each of the assertions concerning what I learned, what I did, and the good
faith beliefs formed by me in the course of my prosecutions of claims against Jeffrty
Epstein as contained in the Statement of Undisputed Facts is true, and the foundations
set out as support for my beliefs are true and correct to e best of my knowledge.
25. All actions taken by me in the course of my prosecution of claims against Jeffrey
Epstein were based upon a good faith belief that they were reasonable, necessary, and
ethically proper to fulfill my obligation to zealously represent the interests of my
clie ts.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated:
.24
2010
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 50 2009CA 040800)0OCKMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,
Defendants,
DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS'S
RENEWED MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., by and through his undersigned counsel and
pursuant to Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for Final Summary
Judgment and in support thereof states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
The pleadings and discovery taken to date show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material facts and that Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. is entitled to summary judgment for all claims
brought against him in Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Second Amended Complaint. Not only is there
an absence of competent evidence to demonstrate that Edwards participated in any fraud against
Epstein, the evidence uncontrovertibly demonstrates the propriety of every aspect of Edwards'
involvement in the prosecution of legitimate claims against Epstein. Epstein sexually abused
three clients of Edwards — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — and Edwards properly and successfully
represented them in a civil action against Epstein. Nothing in Edwards's capable and competent
representation of his clients can serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit against him. Allegations
about Edwards's participation in or knowledge of the use of the civil actions against Epstein in a
"Ponzi Scheme" are not supported by any competent evidence and could never be supported by
competent evidence as they are entirely false.
A. Epstein's Complaint
Epstein's Second Amended Complaint essentially alleges that Epstein was damaged by
Edwards, acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law
fiiiii ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein appears to allege that
Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to
"pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor victims were
told by Rothstein that three minor girls who were sexually assaulted by Epstein: L.M., E.W., and
Jane Doe were to be paid up-front money to prevent those girls from settling their civil cases
against Epstein. In Epstein's view, these child sexual assault cases had "minimal value"
(Complaint & 42(h)), and Edwards's refusal to force his clients to accept modest settlement
offers is claimed to breach some duty that Edwards owed to Epstein. Interestingly, Epstein never
states that he actually made any settlement offers.
The supposed "proof' of the Complaint's allegations against Edwards includes
Edwards's alleged contacts with the media, his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile
persons with whom Epstein socialized, and use of "ridiculously inflammatory" language in
arguments in court. Remarkably, Epstein has filed such allegations against Edwards despite the
fact that Epstein had sexually abused each of Edwards's clients and others while they were
2
minors. Indeed, in discovery Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than
answer questions about the extent of the sexual abuse of his many victims. Even more
remarkably, since filing his suit against Edwards, Epstein has now settled the three cases
Edwards handled for an amount that Epstein insisted be kept confidential. Without violating the
strict confidentiality terms required by Epstein, the cases did not settle for the "minimal value"
that Epstein suggested in his Complaint. Because Epstein relies upon the alleged discrepancy
between the "minimal value Epstein ascribed to the claims and the substantial value Edwards
sought to recover for his clients, the settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agreed to pay while
these claims against Edwards were pending will be disclosed to the court in-camera.
B. Summary of the Argument
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., is entitled to summary judgment on Epstein's frivolous claim
for at least three separate reasons.
First, because Epstein has elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self
incrimination to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at
the center of his claims, he is barred from prosecuting this case against Edwards. Under the
well-established "sword and shield" doctrine, Epstein cannot seek damages from Edwards while
at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. His case
must therefore be dismissed.
Second, all of Edwards' conduct in the prosecution of valid claims against Epstein is
protected by the litigation privilege.
Third, and most fundamentally, Epstein's lawsuit should be dismissed because it is not
only unsupported by but is also directly contradicted by all of the record evidence. From the
3
beginning, Edwards diligently represented three victims of sexual assaults perpetrated by
Epstein. As explained in detail below, each and every one of Edwards's litigation decisions was
grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery against
Epstein, particularly in the face of Epstein's stonewalling tactics.
Edwards's successful
representation finally forced Epstein to settle and pay appropriate damages. Effective and proper
representation of child victims who have been repeatedly sexually assaulted cannot form the
basis of a separate, !`satellite" lawsuit, and therefore Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on
these grounds as well.
The truth is the record is entirely devoid of any evidence to support Epstein's claims and
is completely and consistently corroborative of Edwards's sworn assertion of innocence. Put
simply, Epstein has.made allegations that have no basis in fact. To the contrary, his lawsuit was
merely a desperate measure by a serial pedophile to prevent being held accountable for
repeatedly sexually abusing minor females. Epstein's ulterior motives in filing and prosecuting
this lawsuit are blatantly obvious. Epstein's behavior is another clear demonstration that he feels
he lives above the law and that because of his wealth he can manipulate the system and pay for
lawyers to do his dirty work - even to the extent of having them assert baseless claims against
other members of the Florida Bar. Epstein's Second Amended Complaint against Edwards is
nothing short of a far-fetched fictional fairy-tale with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to
support his preposterous claims. It was his last ditch effort to escape the public disclosure by
Edwards and his clients of the nature, extent, and sordid details of his life as a serial child
molester. Edwards's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted without equivocation.
4
ARGUMENT
II. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN'S
CLAIM BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATERIAL DISPUTED FACTS AND THE
UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH THAT EDWARDS'S CONDUCT COULD
NOT POSSIBLY FORM THE BASIS OF ANY LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN
A. The Summary Judgment Standard.
Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a court may enter summary
judgment when the.pleadings, depositions and factual showings reveal that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
Snyder v. Cheezem Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Rule 1.510(c),
Fla. R. Civ. P. Once the moving party conclusively establishes that the nonmoving party cannot
prevail, it is incumbent on the nonmoving party to submit evidence to rebut the motion for
summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). It is not enough for the
opposing party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. 11Tynns, 667 So.2d 761,
764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same).
Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary
judgment motion supported by appropriate proof may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions
found in the pleadings to create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party
must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See Bryant v.
Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985);
see also Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, 141 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d Dist Ct. App. 1962)
(recognizing that mere contrary allegations of complaint were not sufficient to preclude summary
judgment on basis of facts established without dispute). Where the nonmoving party fails to
5
present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of
material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408
So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43.
B. Epstein's Claim Regarding Edwards Have Absolutely No Factual Basis.
This is not a complicated case for granting summary judgment. To the contrary, this is a
simple case for summary judgment because each and every one of Epstein's claim against
Edwards lacks any merit whatsoever.'
1. Epstein's allegations regarding Edwards' involvement in Rothstein's "Ponzi
Scheme" are unsupported and unsupportable because he was simply not
involved in any such scheme.
a. Edwards Had No Involvement in the Ponzi Scheme.
The bulk of Epstein's claims against Edwards hinge on the premise that Edwards was
involved in a Ponzi •scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part
of Edwards are scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations provide
any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he
"knew or should have known" of its existence are based upon an impermissible pyramiding of
inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason: Edwards was
simply not involved in any Ponzi scheme. He has provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in
support of that assertion, and there is not (and could never be) any contrary evidence.
Edwards has now been deposed at length in this case. As his deposition makes crystal
clear, he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein may have been
I A decision by the Court to grant summary judgment on Epstein's claims against Edwards would not affect
Epstein's claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein has already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the
only other defendant named in the suit.
6
involved. See, e.g., Edwards Depo. at 301-02 (Q: " . . . [W]ere you aware that Scott Rothstein
was trying to market Epstein cases . . . ?" A: "No.").
Edwards has supplemented his deposition answers with an Affidavit that declares in no
uncertain terms his lack of involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein.
See, e.g.,
Edwards Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as Exhibit '1\1' at ¶8-10,
¶20, ¶22-23. Indeed, no reasonable juror could find that Edwards was involved in the scheme, as
Edwards joined RRA well after Rothstein began his fraud and would have been already deeply in
debt. In fact, the evidence of Epstein's crimes is now clear, and Edwards's actions in this case
were entirely in keeping with his obligation to provide the highest possible quality of legal
representation for his clients to obtain the best result possible.
In view of this clear evidence rebutting all allegations against him, Epstein must now
"produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact." See Bryant v. Shands
Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Epstein
cannot do this. Indeed, when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence of Edwards's
involvement, Epstein declined to answer, purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds:
Q. I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that Bradley
Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were sold
purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement? . . .
A. I'd like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported
that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece
unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect to my personal knowledge, I'm
unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to at some point being able to
disclose it, today I'm going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege.
See Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") at 67-68.
Therefore summary judgment should be granted for Edwards on all claims involving any Ponzi
scheme by Rothstein.
7
b. Epstein's Allegations of Negligence by Edwards are Unfounded and Not
Actionable in Any Event.
In his Second Amended Complaint Epstein recognizes at least the possibility that
Edwards was not involved in any Rothstein Ponzi scheme. Therefore, seemingly as a fallback,
Epstein alleges without explanation that Edwards "should have known" about the existence of
this concealed Ponzi scheme. Among other problems, this fallback negligence position suffers
the fatal flaw that it does not link at all to the intentional tort of abuse of process alleged in the
complaint.
Epstein's negligence claim is also deficient because it simply fails to satisfy the
requirements for a negligence cause of action:
"Four elements are necessary to sustain a negligence claim: 1. A duty, or
obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a
certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable
risks. 2. A failure on the [defendant's] part to conform to the standard required: a
breach of the duty . . . 3. A reasonably close causal connection between he
conduct and the resulting injury. This is what is commonly known as 'legal
cause,' or 'proximate cause,' and which includes the notion of cause in fact. 4.
Actual loss or damage.
Curd v. MOsaic Fertilizer, LLC, S o.2d , 2010 WL 2400384 at *9 (Fla. 2010). Epstein
does not allege a particular duty on the part of Edwards that has been breached. Nor does
Epstein explain how any breach of the duty might have proximately caused him actual damages.
Summary judgment is therefore appropriate for these reasons as well.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is worth noting briefly that no reasonable jury
could find Edwards to have been negligent in failing to anticipate that a managing pal tner at his
law firm would be involved in an unprecedented Ponzi scheme. Scott Rothstein deceived not
8
only Edwards but also more than 60 other reputable lawyers at a major law firm. Cf . Sun
Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Dec. 11, 2009, 2009 WLNR 25074193 at *1 ("Sure, some outlandish
John Grisham murder plot[s] sound far-fetched. But if you asked me a few months ago if Scott
Rothstein was fabricating federal court orders and forging a judge's signature on documents to
allegedly fleece his friends, as federal prosecutors allege, I would have said that was far-fetched,
too."). No reasonable lawyer could have expected that a fellow member of the bar would have
been involved in such a plot. Nobody seemed to know of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, not even his
best friends, or the people he did business with on a daily basis, or even his wife. Many of the
attorneys at RRA had been there for years and knew nothing. Edwards was a lawyer at RRA for
less than 8 months and had very few personal encounters with Rothstein during his time at the
firm, yet Epstein claims that he should have known of Rothstein's intricate Ponzi scheme. No
doubt for this reason the U.S. Attorney's Office has now listed Edwards as a "victim" of
Rothstein's crimes. See Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contemporaneously.
Epstein's Complaint does not offer any specific reason why a jury would conclude that
Edwards was negligent, and he chose not to offer any explanation of his claim at his deposition.
Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment to the extent the claim against him is
somehow dependent upon his negligence in failing to discover Rothstein's Ponzi scheme.
2. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent the Claim Against
Him is Dependent on Allegations Regarding "Pumping the Cases" Because
He Was Properly Pursuing the Interests of His Three Clients Who Had Been
Sexually Abused by Epstein.
Epstein alleges that Edwards somehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil
cases he had filed against Epstein. Edwards represented three young women — L.M., E.W., and
Jane Doe — by filing civil suits against Epstein for his sexual abuse of them while they were
9
minors. Epstein purports to find a cause of action for this by alleging that Edwards somehow
was involved in "'pumping' these three cases to investors."
As just explained, to the extent that Epstein is alleging that Edwards somehow did
something related to the Ponzi scheme, those allegations fail for the simple reason that Edwards
was not involved in any such scheme. Edwards, for example, could not have possibly "pumped"
the cases to investors when he never participated in any communication with investors.
Epstein's "pumping" claims, however, fail for an even more basic reason: Edwards was
entitled — indeed ethically obligated as an attorney — to secure the maximum recovery for his
clients during the course of his legal representation. As is well known, lals an advocate, a
lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system." Fla. Rules
of Prof. Conduct, Preamble.
Edwards therefore was required to pursue (unless otherwise
instructed by his clients) a maximum recovery against Epstein. Edwards, therefore, cannot be
liable for doing something that his ethical duties as an attorney required.2
Another reason that Epstein's claims that Edwards was "pumping" cases for investors
fails is that Edwards filed all three cases almost a year before he was hired by RRA or even knew
of :Scott Rothstein.
Epstein makes allegations that the complaints contained sensational
allegations for the purposes of luring investors; however, language in the complaints remained
virtually unchanged from the first filing in 2008 and from the overwhelming evidence the Court
can see for itself that all of the facts alleged by Edwards in the complaints were true.
Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards filed against him for more
money than he paid to settle any of the other claims against him. At Epstein's request, the terms
2 In a further effort to harass Edwards, Epstein also filed a bar complaint with the Florida Bar against Edwards. The
Florida Bar has dismissed that complaint. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
10
of the settlement were kept confidential. The sum that he paid to settle all these cases is
therefore not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for in-camera review.
Epstein chose to make this payment as the result of a federal court ordered mediation process,
which he himself sought (over the objection of Jane Doe, Edwards' client in federal court) in an
effort to resolve the case.
See Defendant's Motion for Settlement Conference, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation, Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-CV-80893
(S.D. Fla. June 28, 2010) (Marra, J.) (doc. #168) attached hereto as Exhibit A. Notably,
Epstein sought this settlement conference — and ultimately made his payments as a result of that
conference - in July 2010, more than seven months after he filed this lawsuit against Edwards.
Accordingly, Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to "pump" the cases against
him, because he never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA and had
severed all connection with Scott Rothstein (December 2009).
In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for
example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge
Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein
simply chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doctrine of res judicata from
somehow re-litigating what happened in (for example) the Jane Doe case. "The doctrine of res
judicata makes a judgment on the merits conclusive not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with
propriety have been litigated and determined in that action." AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept. of
Transp., So.2d , 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kiinbrell
v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984). Obviously, any question of improper "pumping" of a
11
particular case could have been resolved in that vet)) case rather than now re-litigated in satellite
litigation.
3. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Claim of
Abuse of Process Because He Acted Properly Within the Boundaries of the
Law in Pursuit of the Legitimate Interests of his Clients.
Epstein's Second Amended Complaint raises several claims of "abuse of process." An
abuse of process claim requires proof of three elements: "(1) that the defendant made an illegal,
improper, or perverted use of process; (2) that the defendant had ulterior motives or purposes in
exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; and (3) that, as a result of such
action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damage. " S & Ilnvestments v. Payless
Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4 th Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citation omitted). In
fact, this Court is very familiar with this cause of action, as Edwards has correctly stated this
cause in his counterclaim against Epstein. Edwards is entitled to summary judgment because
Epstein cannot prove these elements.
The first element of an abuse of process claim is that a defendant made "an illegal,
improper, or perverted use of process." On the surface, Epstein's Complaint appears to contain
several allegations of such improper process.
On examination, however, each of these
allegations amounts to nothing other than a claim that Epstein was unhappy with some
discovery proceeding, motion or argument made by Edwards. This is not the stuff of an abuse of
process claim, particularly where Epstein fails to allege that he was required to do something as
the result of Edwards' pursuit of the claims against him. See Marty v. Gresh, 501 So.2d 87, 90
(Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (affirming summary judgment on an abuse of process claim where
"appellant's lawsuit caused appellee to do nothing against her will").
12
In any event, none of the allegations of "improper" process can survive summary
judgment scrutiny, because every action Edwards took was entirely proper and reasonably
calculated to lead to the successful prosecution of the pending claims against Epstein as detailed
in Edwards' Affidavit.
Epstein also fails to meet the second element of an abuse of process claim: that Edwards
had some sort of ulterior motive. The case law is clear that on an abuse of process claim a
"plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other than that for
which it was designed." MI Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla.
4th Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Biondo v. Powers, 805 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2002).
As a consequence, "[w]here the process was used to accomplish the result for which it was
intended, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose, there is no
abuse of process." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Here, Edwards has fully denied any
improper motive, See Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Epstein has no evidence of any such
motivation. Indeed, it is revealing that Epstein chose not to ask even a single question about this
subject during the deposition of Edwards. In addition, all of the actions that Epstein complains
about were in fact used for the immediate purpose of furthering the lawsuits filed by L.M., E.W.,
and Jane Doe. In other words, these actions all were both intended to accomplish and, in fact,
successfully "accomplished the results for which they were intended" -- whether it was securing
additional discovery or presenting a legal issue to the court handling the case or ultimately
maximizing the recovery of damages from Epstein on behalf of his victims. Accordingly,
Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on any claim that he abused process for this reason as
well.
13
4. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent His Claim is Based
On Pursuit of Discovery Concerning Epstein's Friends Because All Such
Efforts Were Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Relevant and Admissible
Testimony About Epstein's Abuse of Minor Girls.
Epstein has also alleged that Edwards improperly pursued discovery from some his close
friends.
Such discovery, Epstein claims, was improper because Edwards knew that these
individuals lacked any discoverable information about the sexual assault cases against Epstein.
Here again, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment, as each of the friends of Epstein
were reasonably believed to possess discoverable information. The undisputed facts show the
following with regard to each of the persons raised in Epstein's complaint:
e
With regard to Donald Trump, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr.
Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed
Facts.
• With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound
legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable
information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
• With regard to former President Bill Clinton, Edwards had sound legal basis for
believing former President Clinton had relevant and discoverable information.
See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
® With regard to Ramer Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not
the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed
Facts.
® With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis for
believing Mr. Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information. See
Statement of Undisputed Facts.
e
With regard to framer New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Edwards had
sound legal basis for naming Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on
his witness list. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
It is worth noting that the standard for discovery is a very liberal one. To notice someone
for a deposition, of course, it is not required that the person deposed actually end up producing
14
admissible evidence. Otherwise, every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead
to an "abuse of process" claim. Moreover, the rules of discovery themselves provide that a
deposition need only be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the discovery that Edwards pursued has to be considered against the backdrop
of Epstein's obstructionist tactics. As the Court is aware, in both this case and all other cases
filed against him, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer any
substantive questions. Epstein has also helped secure attorneys for his other household staff who
assisted in the process of recruiting the minor girls, who in turn also asserted their Fifth
Amendment rights rather than explain what happened behind closed doors in Epstein's mansion
in West Palm Beach. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. It is against this backdrop that
Edwards followed up on one of the only remaining lines of inquiry open to him: discovery aimed
at Epstein's friends who might have been in a position to corroborate the fact that Epstein was
sexually abusing young girls.
In the context of the sexual assault cases that Edwards had filed against Epstein, any act
of sexual abuse had undeniable relevance to the case — even acts of abuse Epstein committed
against minor girls other than L.M., E.W., or Jane Doe. Both federal and state evidence rules
make acts of child abuse against other girls admissible in the plaintiff s case in chief as proof of
"modus operandi" or "motive" or "common scheme or plan." See Fed. R. Evid. 415 (evidence of
other acts of sexual abuse automatically admissible in a civil case); Fla. Stat. Ann. 90.404(b)
(evidence of common scheme admissible); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (other
acts of potential sexual misconduct admissible).
15
A second reason exists for making discovery of Epstein's acts of abuse of other minor
girls admissible. Juries considering punitive damages issues are plainly entitled to consider "the
existence and frequency of similar past conduct." TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources
Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n.28 (1993). This is because the Supreme Court recognizes "that a
recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender . . . [because] repeated misconduct
is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance." BMW of North America, Inc.
v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 577 (1996) (supporting citations omitted). In addition, juries can consider
other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calculation in awarding punitive damages,
because "evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing
. . . that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is
required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law." Id. at 576-77. In the cases Edwards
filed against Epstein, his clients were entitled to attempt to prove that Epstein "repeatedly
engaged in prohibited conduct" — i.e., because he was a predatory pedophile, he sexually
assaulted dozens and dozens of minor girls. The discovery of Epstein's friends who might have
had direct or circumstantial evidence of other acts of sexual assault was accordingly entirely
proper. Edwards is therefore entitled summary judgment to the extent his claim is based on
efforts by Edwards to obtain discovery of Epstein's friends.
III. EPSTEIN'S LAWSUIT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF HIS REFUSAL TO
PARTICIPATE IN REASONABLE DISCOVERY.
As is readily apparent from the facts of this case, Epstein has filed a lawsuit but then
refused to allow any real discovery about the merits of his case. Instead, when asked hard
questions about whether he has any legitimate claim at all, Epstein has hidden behind the Fifth
16
Amendment. As a result, under the "sword and shield doctrine widely recognized in Florida
caselaw, his suit must be dismissed.
"[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his
lawsuit." Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. J.A., 22 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th Dist.
Ct. App. 2009) (Griffin, J., concurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek affirmative
relief in a civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the
fifth amendment as both a 'sword and a shield.'" DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290, 1290
(Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th
Dist. Ct. App. 1983)). Put another way, "[a] civil litigant's fifth amendment right to avoid selfincrimination
may be used as a shield but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking
affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with
the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick
Hunter of New York, Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Court App.
1983).
Here, Epstein is trying to do precisely what the "well settled" law forbids. Specifically,
he is trying to obtain "affirmative relief' — i.e., forcing Edwards to pay money damages — while
simultaneously precluding Edwards from obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the
allegations that form the basis for the relief Epstein is seeking. As recounted more fully in the
statement of undisputed facts, Epstein has refused to answer such basic questions about his
lawsuit as:
"Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr.
Edwards ginned up?"
® "Well, which of Mr. Edwards' cases do you contend were fabricated?"
17
• "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of
2008. which you contend to be false?"
• "I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person
referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?"
• "Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?"
• "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?"
The matters addressed in these questions are the central focus of Epstein's claims against
Edwards. Epstein's refusal to answer these and literally every other substantive question put to
him in discovery has deprived Edwards of even a basic understanding of the evidence alleged to
support claims against him. Moreover, by not offering any explanation of his allegations,
Epstein is depriving Edwards of any opportunity to conduct third party discovery and
opportunity to challenge Epstein's allegations.
It is the clear law that "the chief purpose of our discovery rules is to assist the truthfinding
function of our justice system and to avoid trial by surprise or ambush," Scipio v. State,
928 So.2d 1138 (Fla.2006), and "full and fair discovery is essential to these important goals,"
McFadden v. State, 15 So.3d 755, 757 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2009). Accordingly, it is important
for the Court to insure "not only compliance with the technical provisions of the discovery rules,
but also adherence to the purpose and spirit of those rules in both the criminal and civil context."
McFadden, 15 So.3d at 757. Epstein has repeatedly blocked "full and fair discovery," requiring
dismissal of his claim against Edwards.
18
IV. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM
EPSTEIN'S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND
THEREFORE TO SUIVIIVIARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN'S CLAIM.
Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on the claim against him for a second and
entirely independent reason: Epstein's repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment raise
adverse inferences against him that leave no possibility that a reasonable factfinder could reach a
verdict in his favor.
In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must fulfill a
"gatekeeping function" and should ask whether "a reasonable trier of fact could possibly" reach
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Willingham v. City of Orlando, 929 So.2d 43, 48 (Fla. 5th Dist.
Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). Given all of the inferences that are to be drawn against
Epstein, no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Epstein was somehow the victim of
improper civil lawsuits filed against him. Instead, a reasonable finder of fact could only find that
Epstein was a serial molester of children who was being held accountable through legitimate
suits brought by Edwards and others on behalf of the minor girls that Epstein victimized.
"[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against
parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered
against them." Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777
So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A
party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a
constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil setting." Fraser v. Security and Inv. Coip., 615
So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, "'Silence is
often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d
19