EFTA00792811

141 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
information that was relied on and decide if 
that was enough. 
You may agree it is, you may agree it 
is not, Judge. It's going to be your call. 
THE COURT: Let's go back to the Fifth 
Amendment issues and deal with those now. 
You have gotten my global rulings on 
the issues. I am going to review the 
individual questions that are intended to be 
reasked or to be published by the 
counter-plaintiff Edwards at trial as it 
relates to Mr. Epstein's invocation of the 
Fifth Amendment and the related privileges 
that he is claiming. I don't want to be 
hamstrung by this record as only dealing 
with Fifth Amendment. Anything that's in 
his deposition that has been objected to on 
privilege grounds. 
MR. LINK: Thank you, Your Honor. We 
appreciate it. 
THE COURT: Thanks. 
What I would like to then get into next 
are some of these exhibits. If we can deal 
with those now, let's go ahead and do that. 
We will use the next hour or to take care of 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792951

142 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
those please. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: May I approach the 
bench, Your Honor? 
THE COURT: Sure. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: I have a copy of 
Mr. Edwards' amended exhibit list. And 
those items that are highlighted -- some of 
which Your Honor has already mentioned --
this would be related to paragraph B -- or 
item B in the revised omnibus motion in 
limine on page 22. Mr. Epstein has raised 
both and asserted both relevance, 90.401 and 
the gatekeeper function of the Court, 
probative value, prejudicial effect of 
90.403. 
Some of the examples that Your Honor 
had mentioned, I think, was a massage table, 
which was number 59. But if we start at the 
front, there is an order confirmation from 
Amazon for the purchase of a book entitled 
"Slave Craft: Workbook for Erotic Slaves and 
their Owners." Completely irrelevant, 
prejudicial, has zero probative value 
whatsoever to do with the malicious 
prosecution action. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792952

143 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
The same is true -- and I have 
highlighted all of these -- they are really 
grouped, Your Honor. Some of them are just 
so outrageous when you read them, such as 
the erotic book, sex offender registrations, 
massage table, school records and year books 
of Jane Doe and -- unidentified year books 
just of Royal Palm Beach. Flight logs, 
evidence of contributions to Palm Beach 
Gardens Police Department. 
And there are some articles, which 
leads me very quickly -- and I think we can 
probably -- I hate to jump, but I think, 
based on Your Honor's ruling, it's possible 
that Mr. Scarola will agree to item C in the 
motion in limine, which relates to 
derogative adjectives when referencing my 
client. 
Based on the rulings that you have made 
this morning, I believe that Mr. Scarola 
probably would agree not to refer to 
Mr. Epstein as convicted child molester, 
billionaire pedophile or the like. 
THE COURT: Well, billionaire 
pedophile, I agree is subject to argument. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792953

144 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
But convicted child molester, Mr. Scarola. 
MR. SCAROLA: That is an accurate 
description of Mr. Epstein. It is a 
description, which I believe appears in some 
of the newspaper articles that Mr. Epstein 
alleges he relied upon to form a reasonable 
belief that Bradley Edwards was a 
participant in these -- in this Ponzi 
scheme. 
THE COURT: Did he take a plea of 
guilty? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. He entered a plea 
of guilty to two felonies. He is a 
registered sex offender here in --
THE COURT: I just want to make sure it 
was a guilty plea, as opposed to a nolo 
or --
MR. SCAROLA: No. It was a guilty 
plea, Your Honor. 
Under the non-prosecution agreement 
with the federal government, he was required 
to plead guilty to two state court felonies. 
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger, did you 
want to comment on that? 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, Your Honor. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792954

145 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Just for a point of clarification, neither 
of the counts that Mr. Epstein pled guilty 
to are, quote, those that suggest that he's 
a child molester. It was procuring an 
underaged for prostitution. That's the 
count. 
So the suggestion by counsel for the 
counter-plaintiff that he is somehow a child 
molester, there's just no basis in the 
guilty plea that he entered. 
Now, he is a registered sex offender 
subject to a 403 analysis. Perhaps counsel 
will be able to go there. But there's no 
evidence to support, based on the documents 
and on the guilty plea that he's a child 
molester. He simply didn't plea guilty to 
anything factually related to that. 
THE COURT: Tell me exactly what he 
pled guilty to. 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Let me get the 
document, if I can --
THE COURT: Sure. 
MR. GOLDBERGER: -- Your Honor, so 
there's no mistake. Solicitation for 
prostitution, procuring someone under the 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792955

146 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
age of 18 for prostitution. 
MR. SCAROLA: Three someones, which 
made it a felony, correct? 
MR. GOLDBERGER: Yeah. Solicitation of 
prosecution requires three individuals 
before it goes from a misdemeanor to a 
felony. 
THE COURT: Even if it's under the age 
-- alleged victim is under the age of 18? 
MR. GOLDBERGER: That's the other count 
that he pled guilty to. Solicitation of 
prostitution of someone under the age of 18. 
The solicitation for prostitution, in 
order to make that a felony it requires 
three separate incidents. 
But none of those success factually in 
any way the facts that he was a child 
molester. That's the point that I think my 
co-counsel is trying to make. 
THE COURT: Convicted child molester is 
the term that was used. 
MR. GOLDBERGER: And that's simply not 
factually correct. 
THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: Since we are dealing with 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792956

147 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
this in the context of Fifth Amendment 
assertions --
THE COURT: No, we are dealing with 
this as a matter of a portion of the omnibus 
motion in limine. 
MR. SCAROLA: Then I don't have any 
further comment. 
THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 
The motion is granted. 
As I understand it in reviewing the 
case law recently, the guilty plea would be 
admissible. The registration of sex 
offender, I am going to need some additional 
briefing on. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: And believe me, I've 
done that, Your Honor. I'm not sure we can 
take it up today. But Mr. Edwards asked 
this Court to take judicial notice of it and 
we have supplied a response. 
THE COURT: I can only go through so 
much material within the time --
MS. ROCKENBACH: I know. 
I think we only addressed part C of the 
motion in limine. I hoped it would be 
quick, that's why I brought it up. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792957

148 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
THE COURT: Off the record. 
(A discussion was held off the record.) 
MR. SCAROLA: Getting back to the 
ruling Your Honor just made, I certainly 
have no intention of referring to Jeffrey 
Epstein as a convicted child molester when 
his convictions did not expressly relate to 
child molestation. It was solicitation of 
prostitution, multiple solicitations for 
prostitution. I will be sure that I 
accurately refer to those things when I make 
reference to them. 
THE COURT: Of a minor? 
MR. SCAROLA: Of minors. 
THE COURT: My understanding of the 
case law it's clear that the plea is 
admissible. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, maybe we 
should take that up. And I guess we are 
going to skip exhibits for a minute, because 
this is too important to just gloss over. 
THE COURT: I don't know if it has been 
briefed, at least in the briefs that --
MS. ROCKENBACH: Probably not the way 
we would like, but we don't want to paper 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792958

149 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
the court. 
Pages 26 and 27 deal with the 
derogatory adjectives. That is somewhat 
along those lines. But where I think 
Mr. Scarola is going is 90.610 of the 
Florida Evidence Code, which indicates that 
when Mr. Epstein is on the stand he can be 
asked, Have you ever been convicted of a 
felony? The answer, Yes. But the identity 
of that felony is not admissible, and that 
is part of the evidence code. 
So I'm not sure -- Your Honor is 
correct, this has not been fully briefed, 
because all that I anticipated were these 
two very inflammatory terms. 
THE COURT: The distinction, though, 
Ms. Rockenbach, that I would respectfully 
make -- and I'm not going to suggest that 
I'm an authority on this particular area --
is that typically that question is asked for 
one of credibility. Meaning, have you ever 
convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor 
involving moral turpitude. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct. 
THE COURT: If the answer is yes, the 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792959

150 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
next question is how many times. If there 
is any falsity to any of those -- either of 
those responses, then the requesting party 
has the opportunity to provide the Court, 
and potentially the jury, with 
counter-evidence typically in the form of 
certified copies of convictions. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: That's correct. 
THE COURT: Now, that's a lot different 
than in this case, where we are not 
necessarily talking about merely 
credibility. What we're talking about what 
in essence -- if not the heart, certainly 
near the center of the entire case. 
In other words, but for the fact 
that -- at least, but for one of the facts 
that Mr. Epstein was convicted, the context 
of a malicious prosecution claim and the 
context of the contentions that would be 
made by Mr. Edwards relating to the 
malicious prosecution claim would be that 
his conviction and his legal peril were part 
of his reasons for bringing the case against 
Mr. Edwards. 
So this is not merely an issue of 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792960

151 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
testing credibility of any given witness. 
As I understand it, just about any witness 
can be asked those questions. This is more 
of an issue of a fact central to the 
presentation of the case. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, 
Mr. Epstein's guilty plea was June 30th, 
2008. His lawsuit against Mr. Edwards was 
December 7th, 2009. So the guilty plea was 
entered at least a year and a half before he 
sued Mr. Edwards. 
And my concern with this under the 
impeachment part of the Florida Evidence 
Code 610.5 -- I am going to quote from 
Ehrhardt, 2016 version, "When a witness who 
testifies as a criminal defendant there is a 
danger" -- we are not even a criminal 
defendant. We are not even trying the 
criminal case -- "but there's danger that 
the jury will consider the convictions, 
which are admitted only to impeach as 
evidence the defendant is a bad person. The 
concern is greater when there are number of 
prior convictions." There's on one. 
But the point is, this is bad character 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792961

152 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
evidence under 90.404. It's improper 
impeachment under 90.610. And we absolutely 
oppose and object to the guilty plea coming 
into evidence. It has no relevance to the 
issue of why my client filed a malicious 
prosecution action a year and a half after 
he pled guilty. 
THE COURT: Mr. Scarola. 
MR. SCAROLA: Ms. Rockenbach is 
incorrect that we would seek to admit this 
evidence solely under 90.610. Because under 
that provision of the evidence code, we 
would be restricted to, Have you ever been 
convicted of a crime? How many times? I 
understand that entirely. And that's 
strictly a matter of credibility. 
However, the issue that we have the 
burden of proving is an issue of probable 
cause. And that involves, as we have 
explained in great detail, an analysis of 
what Mr. Epstein knew. Part of what 
Mr. Epstein knew when he sued Bradley 
Edwards is that he was guilty of multiple 
crimes involving sexual activity with 
minors. That's part of what he knew. He 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792962

153 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
pled guilty to that. 
Now, he was asked in deposition, Who 
are the minors that you pled guilty to? 
Objection. Fifth Amendment. I refuse to 
answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 
those people. 
Well, we can draw an adverse inference 
He refused to identify 
from that. And the adverse inference we 
draw is that the three people were L.M., 
E.W. and Jane Doe. 
Now, he can get up and try to rebut 
that adverse inference through something 
other than his own testimony, because 
through his own testimony he has foreclosed 
any further evidence coming from him. But 
if there's some independent source where he 
can suggest to the jury that this is not a 
proper inference to draw. He wasn't 
pleading guilty to crimes committed against 
these three young women -- these three 
children at the time -- then he can do that. 
But it is relevant and material to the issue 
of probable cause because he admitted sexual 
offenses relating to children and refuses to 
can 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792963

154 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
identify in the context of this case who 
those children are. 
So this isn't just propensity. This 
isn't bad character. This is evidence that 
is directly material to an element of this 
case that we are obliged to prove. 
So your Honor's reaction was absolutely 
correct. There are other reasons why this 
comes in in the context of this case. 
Thank you, sir. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I 
reply? 
THE COURT: Sure. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: In Mr. Epstein's 
deposition March 17th, 2010 on page 103, 
Mr. Scarola asked him, line 23, "Who is the 
minor that you procured for prostitution? 
And the answer is, "I do not know." 
Let's get back to the probable cause 
issue. 
MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. I do stand 
corrected. I am remembering now that that 
was his response. It wasn't the Fifth 
Amendment assertion. It changes none of the 
arguments I've just made. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792964

155 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
THE COURT: I understand. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, the issue 
of whether my client pled guilty to 
prostitution with one minor or not is not 
relevant to what facts and circumstances. 
And that's the phrase of all the cases 
reported. What facts and circumstances were 
known to Mr. Epstein when he filed his 
malicious prosecution. And the Wright 
versus Yorco (phonetic) case. We haven't 
talking about it, but --
THE COURT: I'm familiar with it. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: I'm sure, Your Honor. 
-- both sides cited it. And it talks 
about what constitutes that probable cause. 
The public record. The public record. So 
my client can rely on two parts. Rely on 
firsthand knowledge or trustworthy 
information provided to him. That's the 
Razorback lawsuit. That's Mr. Bill Scherer, 
the Fort Lauderdale attorney being quoted by 
the newspaper as saying that Epstein --
Rothstein didn't act alone. It's the head 
of the South Florida FBI saying this was not 
a one-man show. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792965

156 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
The issue of my client's plea of 
guilty, has nothing to do with his probable 
cause of whether he believed Mr. Edwards was 
in connection with Mr. Rothstein in puffing 
up the claims. 
THE COURT: One thing I appreciate the 
appellate courts doing recently is writing, 
somewhat extensively, on the fluidity of 
motions in limine, and the fact that until 
the Court can digest at trial all of the 
facts that are being presented in putting 
these things into context, it makes it 
somewhat difficult, and recognizes the trial 
court's difficulty in dealing with some of 
these motions and some of these issues 
without context. 
But, in my respectful view, the flaw of 
the argument from its inception -- again, 
I'm not trying to be disrespectful -- but 
the flaw in the argument is what I perceive 
to be a lack of recognition of, not only 
Mr. Epstein's rationale for filing his suit, 
but the focus, or lack thereof, on 
Mr. Edwards' responsibility and burden 
a 
strict one, and a strong one according to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792966

157 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
onerous -- used by one of the cases in being 
able to prove probable cause here. 
And Mr. Scarola has used in his 
briefing this building blocks approach. And 
I think the same type of analogy or picture 
can be utilized here when speaking about the 
motive. What was the probable cause in 
actuality from the counter-plaintiff 
Edwards' standpoint for Epstein doing what 
he did. 
As I indicated before, but didn't use 
the analogy, what you and Mr. Link provided 
to the Court provides, not only building 
blocks for potentially Mr. Epstein's 
probable cause, but likewise provides 
building blocks for Mr. Edwards' proving 
that he did not have probable cause. 
And as far as the Court is concerned, 
if the guilty plea came after he filed suit, 
then there might be some reasonable argument 
to separate it out and say, Judge, he hadn't 
even filed suit -- the suit was filed 
-- strike that. 
He hadn't pled guilty. The guilty plea 
came three years after he filed this suit 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792967

158 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
for malicious prosecution, then it would 
probably be a relevancy argument that may or 
may not win the day. 
But when looking at it from a building 
block type of analysis, as I have in the 
most simplest terms, in looking at it from 
both sides, which I am incumbent to do, as 
Mr. Scarola alluded to, this is but one item 
that could be argued to have fueled 
Mr. Epstein to have filed this lawsuit, thus 
making it relevant. 
Now, the fluidity issue that I spoke 
about is, I'm willing to look at it, again, 
if there's a case on point that specifically 
says otherwise. But for purposes of this 
particular matter, the Court would find 
absent the production of a case that would 
say otherwise, that Mr. Epstein's guilty 
pleas -- I understand it's combined, so I'm 
not suggesting there were more than one 
combined plea -- would be relevant, that it 
would be relevant to the issue of probable 
cause, and it would be relevant, 
potentially, to the issue of malice. 
And that, again -- with the Court 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792968

159 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
looking at it from both sides, and analyzing 
it from both sides, it could be used by 
Mr. Epstein. It could be used by 
Mr. Edwards. But it provides, at least, 
some relevancy, defined again as proving or 
tending to prove or disprove a material 
fact. The material fact is the element of 
probable cause and perhaps malice. 
So again, I am going to rule that they 
would be admissible. 
Next issue, please. 
But again, we are going to completely 
and entirely stay away from any type of 
pejorative comment. I understand that 
sometimes things are said in the heat of 
deposition that would never be repeated at 
trial. Again, I'm certainly ordering that 
that not take place. 
All right. We want to go back to some 
of these -- in the time that we have left, 
let's go back to some of these exhibits and 
see if we can work through them. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. 
We had identified and have highlighted, 
starting with number three, photographs and 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792969

160 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
information of Mr. Epstein's homes, planes 
automobiles. I'm not sure what relevance 
that would have as to why he filed a 
malicious prosecution action. 
THE COURT: Let's take them one at a 
time. 
Mr. Scarola, what's your position? 
MR. SCAROLA: His homes and his 
automobiles are evidence with respect to his 
pecuniary circumstances. Obviously a 
relevant matter when we are talking about a 
punitive damage claim. 
THE COURT: Typically, though, net 
worth is what is considered, not 
necessarily -- unless it's impeachment, 
i.e., you'll have a picture of a home that 
he owns in the US Virgin Islands -- I think 
that he has some connection with one of 
those islands -- and I'm not trying to 
suggest anything as far as anything 
inappropriate -- but I can conceive of this 
situation that if Mr. Epstein testifies that 
his net worth is X comprised of A, B and C 
in large part, but you find an asset that he 
has not taken into account that's worth 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792970