EFTA00792811

161 
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 
twice as much of his claimed net worth --
MR. SCAROLA: I know he has a minimum 
net worth of --
I don't mean to interrupt, Your Honor, 
but Mr. Epstein refuses to provide any 
evidence with regard to his net worth, so we 
are obliged to offer circumstantial evidence 
of his net worth, unless and until those 
objections based on Fifth Amendment grounds 
are overruled on the basis that they are 
non-testimonial. 
THE COURT: I think that's a subject 
for another motion. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: It is, Your Honor. 
MR. SCAROLA: It is. But Your Honor 
should not be deciding this issue on the 
basis of the premise that we are going to 
get evidence from Mr. Epstein as to what 
Mr. Epstein's net worth is. 
THE COURT: Agreed. 
MR. SCAROLA: All he has told us is 
he's willing to stipulate to a net worth in 
excess of $100 million. Well, it makes a 
difference as to whether it's 100 million, 
200 million or a thousand million, that is a 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792971

162 
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 
billion dollars, or $2 billion. 
So even if we're left with a Fifth 
Amendment assertion, we are back to the same 
issue that was raised by the defense, and 
that is, there needs to be some evidence 
independent of the Fifth Amendment assertion 
that would allow the inference to be --
THE COURT: I'm going to cut you off. 
I'm going to defer on number three. 
Number four is the Amazon receipt for 
the "SM 101: A Realistic Introduction, 
Slave Craft: Roadmap for Erotic 
Servitude-Principles, Skills and Tools" and 
Training Miss Abernathy. A Workbook for 
Erotic Slaves and their Owners." 
MR. SCAROLA: I never read it. 
Your Honor, if I might --
MS. ROCKENBACH: It has no relevance, 
Your Honor. Prejudicial. Should not be 
discussed, referenced, admitted. I think 
it's also a receipt from Amazon for the 
book, by the way. It's an order 
confirmation. If my memory serves correct, 
it's a receipt for the purchase of a book. 
It has nothing to do with malicious 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792972

163 
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 
prosecution. 
THE COURT: Mr. Scarola. 
MR. SCAROLA: In fact, it does. I 
might explain to Your Honor that many of 
items that on this list that are being 
challenged, a vast majority of them, were 
part of an appendix to the motion for 
summary judgment that was not defended 
against by Mr. Epstein. 
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Was 
this particular exhibit located prior to the 
suit being filed by Mr. Epstein? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: It's the receipt 
located by whom? 
THE COURT: By anybody. For the 
purposes of this case. 
MR. SCAROLA: These are items --
THE COURT: In other words, was it 
discovered in a lawsuit that was filed prior 
to Mr. Epstein filing this suit? 
MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. It was 
discovered when a search warrant was 
executed by law enforcement shortly after 
the criminal allegations were made against 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792973

164 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
Mr. Epstein before any of the civil lawsuits 
were filed. 
So law enforcement gets probable cause 
to execute a search warrant on Mr. Epstein's 
home. And one of the things that is 
found -- or many of the things that are 
described here, are found during the course 
of the execution of that search warrant and 
formed probable cause for the criminal 
charges against Mr. Epstein. 
Even more significantly, they formed 
the basis for the civil lawsuits that were 
filed on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. 
That is, this is all evidence taken 
into account in substantiating the validity 
of the claims of these three particular 
victims of Mr. Epstein. 
And all of these things are delineated 
in the motion for summary judgment that 
Mr. Epstein does not defend against and 
voluntarily dismisses his case on the eve of 
the hearing. 
Your Honor is well aware of 
procedurally he would have been obliged well 
in advance of the hearing to file his 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792974

165 
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 
opposition to the motion for summary 
judgment. He doesn't do that. 
Why is that significant in the context 
of this case? Because, as we have heard 
from the defense, they are going to 
challenge whether there is a bona fide 
termination of the claim against Mr. Edwards 
in favor of Mr. Edwards. Was the abuse of 
process claim terminated under such 
circumstances as to indicate a bona fide 
termination? 
How do we make that decision? Well, 
the only way to make that decision is to 
talk about the motion for summary judgment, 
what supported the motion for summary 
judgment, and the fact that the motion for 
summary judgment was not opposed, a 
voluntary dismissal was taken, and the 
statute of limitations permitted to expire 
without ever refiling those claims. 
So as long as bona fide termination 
remains an issue, the motion for summary 
judgment is clearly relevant and material. 
And this is all part of the motion for 
summary judgment. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792975

166 
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 
Many of these things, in addition to 
that, forms the basis for the explanation of 
Mr. Edwards' conduct when he was a member of 
RRA, and demonstrate that he wasn't abusing 
process in any respect at all while he was 
prosecuting these claims. He was pursuing 
very relevant and material avenues of 
discovery reasonably calculated to lead to 
admissible evidence. 
So that's my full response to this. 
THE COURT: The objection is sustained 
on two grounds: on relevancy and also 403 
analysis. 
I will entertain the introduction 
outside the presence of the jury, if it 
becomes necessary. 
The other concern I have is that at 
best it appears to sound like it may be 
impeachment on a collateral matter. 
Collateral to the summary judgment -- the 
summary judgment motion that was made and 
then not challenged. For those reasons, I'm 
going to sustain the objection at this time. 
Again, subject to context for being able to 
readdress it, if necessary. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792976

167 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. SCAROLA: Number four is sustain? 
THE COURT: Yes, sir, for the reasons 
stated in the record. 
MR. SCAROLA: Understood. 
THE COURT: The NPA, I have already 
indicated that the inclination would be --
if properly predicated -- would be allowed. 
The Jane Doe, one of two complaints -- I 
don't see any -- what would be the grounds 
for objecting to that? 
MS. ROCKENBACH: I'm not sure what the 
relevance is. I'm not the proponent of the 
evidence, but I don't see what relevance 
there would be of Jane Doe's complaint. 
The relevance in this malicious 
prosecution action might be the allegations 
of this complaint, this action. But when we 
start bringing in other complaints as 
exhibits for a jury to read, I think that go 
far afield from --
THE COURT: This is the same Jane Doe 
or a different Jane Doe? 
MR. SCAROLA: Same Jane Doe. 
THE COURT: Overruled. 
Next issue. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792977

168 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me, Your Honor. 
There are two Jane Does. This is Jane Doe 
102. 
Jane Doe 102 was a Bob Josefsberg 
client. 
And just so I orient Your Honor with 
regard to this matter. Under the terms of 
the non-prosecution agreement, the federal 
court appointed Bob Josefsberg as counsel on 
behalf of all unrepresented victims to 
protect the interest of unrepresented 
victims turn the terms of the 
non-prosecution agreement. 
One of those multiple victims being 
represented by Mr. Josefsberg was an 
individual identified as Jane Doe 102. She 
has since been publicly as 
And the specific allegations in this 
complaint include the transport of Jane Doe 
Number 2 on Mr. Epstein's private jets to 
various homes owned by Mr. Epstein in 
various locations inside and outside the 
United States. 
THE COURT: She's expect to be a 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792978

169 
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 
witness? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: Live witness? 
MR. SCAROLA: Live. 
THE COURT: At this point I'm going to 
find that, if, in fact, she is a witness, 
that it would be cumulative, and hence I am 
going to sustain the objection on those 
grounds. 
MR. SCAROLA: May I just finish my 
argument as to why this complaint was of 
significance? Because she does -- she does 
allege in the complaint that she was 
molested onboard the airplane, and that she 
was prostituted out to third parties onboard 
the airplane, which provided the basis for 
Mr. Edwards seeking airplane logs and the 
testimony of pilots and the testimony of 
others identified in the flight logs as 
being present on the plane. 
THE COURT: That's fine. I don't have 
a problem with Mr. Edwards testifying. If 
it becomes an issue in terms of credibility 
or whatever it might be, then I will take 
another look on it. But on the basis of the 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792979

170 
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 
arguments that I have heard, the objection 
is sustained for the reasons that I 
provided. 
MR. SCAROLA: Understood. Thank you, 
sir. 
MS. ROCRENBACH: Your Honor, before we 
leave, based on Your Honor's ruling, I would 
make an ore tenus motion for leave to depose 
, because now it has become 
clear that she is going to be testifying, 
based on Mr. Scarola's statement and Your 
Honor's ruling. 
THE COURT: Wasn't she scheduled to 
come to court from Australia? Wasn't that 
the lady? 
MR. SCAROLA: That's where she's 
living. She was scheduled to come to court. 
She was available to be deposed previously. 
They chose not to take her deposition. She 
has been listed as a witness for years in 
this matter. 
THE COURT: I have to do a written 
motion, but I want to be consistent with 
what I said recently, and that is that it's 
not -- the continuance is not -- and I 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792980

171 
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 
emphasize, not designed to be a wholesale 
reopening of discover, that the Court would 
take that up on an issue-by-issue basis. 
But, without pre-deciding anything, 
unless it can be demonstrated to the Court 
that there was unavailability, that there 
was a late filing, that there was some type 
of inability of a witness to testify, 
something along those lines. 
These witnesses have been listed for a 
lengthy period of time. Again, this was not 
the purpose of the motion that was filed and 
it was not the import of the order of the 
Court. 
Let's talk about number seven. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Messages taken from 
message pads found at Mr. Epstein's home. 
THE COURT: What do the messages say? 
MR. SCAROLA: They relate to arranging 
sexual massages with minors. I can't tell 
you from memory -- but Mr. Edwards may be 
able to -- whether there are specific 
references to our three clients. 
THE COURT: Not to be overly technical 
or hypertechnical here, is Mr. Edwards 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792981

172 
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 
serving as co-counsel? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. I think 
I've told Your Honor before, we don't 
anticipate him taking an active role in the 
trial, but he remains as co-counsel of 
record in this case. 
THE COURT: Fair enough. 
Mr. Edwards, would you like to comment 
on that? 
MR. EDWARDS: Sure, Your Honor. The 
message pads include the names of many of 
the underaged females that visited and set 
up appointments at Mr. Epstein's home, 
including L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. 
THE COURT: Have they been 
authenticated by Mr. Epstein? Or did he 
take the Fifth on that? 
MR. EDWARDS: He has taken the Fifth on 
questions related to that. They have been 
authenticated in other depositions by 
Detective Vicari, although those were taken 
in other cases. But he's an available 
witness who could testify as to the chain of 
custody: Where he found the message --
where he found the messages and how he 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792982

173 
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 
gathered them during the search warrant. 
THE COURT: The relevancy, Mr. Scarola? 
MR. SCAROLA: They clearly relate to 
the validity of the claims on behalf of 
these three victims of Mr. Epstein. They 
corroborate that these young women were 
there at his home on many occasions, and 
along with a large number of other underaged 
females who were being routinely molested by 
Mr. Epstein. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor, may I 
relay? This is inflammatory. These message 
pads may be relevant had Mr. Edwards not 
settled the three lawsuits in which he 
represented those three women. But they are 
not relevant in the malicious prosecution 
case whether my client had probable cause to 
file this action or not, or malice. 
We are definitely getting far afield in 
terms of the exhibits. And it looks like --
and I understand why Mr. Edwards would want 
to try exhibits that were relevant to his 
clients' action because the exhibits that 
should be relevant in the malicious 
prosecution case are the facts and 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792983

174 
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 
circumstance, or the lack of facts and 
circumstances on which my client relied in 
filing this lawsuit -- the civil action --
the civil proceeding. 
Message pads regarding these 
appointments are absolutely 90.403 
prejudicial and not -- which prejudicial 
affect clearly outweigh any remote probative 
value in this action. 
MR. SCAROLA: It seems to me that we 
are going, unfortunately, around the same 
mulberry bush. The validity of the claims 
is an issue. 
In addition to that, the viability of 
the claims against Mr. Epstein from a 
criminal perspective is part of why he was 
so concerned about this non-prosecution 
agreement being set aside. 
He knew that there was a mountain of 
evidence that would prove that he was a 
serial child molester, that there were 
dozens and dozens of victims of his 
molestations, which were occurring multiple 
times a day, day after day after day. 
And the only way he could foresee at 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792984

175 
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 point in escaping the criminal exposure 
that was clearly going to result in 
convictions, because of this mountain of 
evidence available, was to scare off the one 
person who was challenging that 
non-prosecution agreement through the Crime 
Victims' Rights Act case. 
THE COURT: I'm going to defer on 
ruling on this. But it is not to be 
mentioned during opening statement. And it 
is going to be determined by the Court in 
the context in which I believe it would be 
necessary. 
And I'm concerned about first -- as I 
mentioned earlier on in another exhibits --
that this is collateral. That it would 
constitute impeachment on a collateral 
matter. 
Again, I don't want to get back into 
serial child molestation. I believe words 
to that effect were just utilized, so that's 
the reason for the ruling. 
I think that right now, based upon what 
I'm looking at, which is not the actual 
messages, but just the recitation of an 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792985

176 
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 
exhibit would be that there -- that any 
probative value would be materially 
outweighed by the prejudice. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. 
We are working off of Mr. Edwards' exhibit 
list. And the next one is eight, documents 
related to Mr. Epstein produced by Alfredo 
Rodriguez. 
THE COURT: Alfredo Rodriguez was the 
houseperson, if I'm understanding? 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: I don't know what that 
means. What specifically are we talking 
about? 
MR. SCAROLA: We're talking about a 
book that contain a list of Jeffrey 
Epstein's victims, their names and telephone 
numbers, as well as a number of other 
contacts that Jeffrey Epstein have, who 
through other evidence, were established to 
be regular guests in his home. 
These provided corroboration of the 
testimony of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. They 
provided evidence of the extent of 
Mr. Epstein's molestation of children, which 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792986

177 
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 
obviously supports the magnitude of the 
wrong in which he was engaged, which goes 
directly to the punitive value of the claims 
brought by L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, that is, 
a jury faced with the task of making a 
determination as to the appropriate amount 
of punitive damages is instructed that they 
shall take into consideration the magnitude 
of the wrong, and that includes the total 
number of victims involved in the offender's 
wrongdoing. 
THE COURT: I presume that by the time 
the case was settled that I or a predecessor 
judge in that division had found a valid 
claim for punitive damages in terms of those 
case that we are dealing with here? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. There were multiple 
punitive damages claims pending. 
THE COURT: I would have expected so. 
I just didn't know the timing. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Your Honor's question 
got us directly to the point. This is 
relevant evidence for punitive damages in 
Mr. Edwards' clients' cases, not in this 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792987

178 
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 
case. 
THE COURT: My concerns are, again, 
that we are going too far afield. And 
again, my best efforts to try to keep this 
as a level playing field when it comes to 
focusing on the claims that are made in this 
particular case, that being the malicious 
prosecution case. 
And while I know and I have already 
indicated, and I believe Epstein's counsel 
has conceded that it cannot be sanitized, 
and will not be sanitized, because it goes 
to many of the issues that are involved 
here, and by way of Mr. Edwards' 
recitations, through Mr. Scarola, the 
motives that Mr. Epstein may have had to 
file the action at bar. 
But at the same time I am going to rule 
in the same way as I did as to number seven, 
and, that is, that I find that under 403 
that the probative value -- any probative 
value is materially outweighed by the 
prejudice involved. 
MR. SCAROLA: May I ask a rhetorical 
question, Your Honor? 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792988

179 
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: Sure. 
MR. SCAROLA: When Mr. Epstein alleges 
that these cases were ginned up, when he 
alleges that asking in the complaint for 
$50 million was totally out of line and 
supportive of his conclusions that this was 
a fabricated claim constructed solely for 
the purposes of supporting -- knowingly 
supporting a Ponzi scheme -- when he alleges 
that these cases really had no significant 
value, how can we not talk about what the 
punitive damage value of the cases were and 
why they had enormous punitive damage value 
when they are claims relating to a vast 
number of molestations by a billionaire? 
THE COURT: Because we are dealing with 
the three cases that Mr. Edwards represented 
these three individuals. And to allow 
records, information about anybody else at 
this juncture would, in my view, be 
collateral to the allegations made by 
Epstein in his claim. 
And there's no contention here that 
Mr. Edwards, for whatever reason, went on 
some type of organized witch hunt so as to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792989

180 
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 
persecute or threaten Mr. Epstein with proof 
of other cases, proof of other alleged 
molestations, documents that are at issue or 
anything of that nature. 
MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly what was 
alleged, sir. It was alleged that Bradley 
Edwards was pursuing discovery with regard 
to molestations of other children that took 
place on an airline when none of Brad 
Edwards' clients were ever molested on the 
airplane. That he had no reasonable basis 
for doing that. 
THE COURT: Now, it seems to me we're 
engaging in a negative, proving up a 
negative. 
MR. SCAROLA: You lost me. 
THE COURT: You understand what I'm 
trying to say? 
MR. SCAROLA: No. 
THE COURT: None of Mr. Edwards' 
clients were molested on an airplane, then 
it seems to me to be conceding my point, and 
that is, then there's no reason for these 
other issues to be introduced, because 
there's nobody that Mr. Edwards represented 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792990