EFTA00792811

181 
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 
that was molested on an airplane. 
MR. SCAROLA: That's exactly my point, 
sir. That's the defense argument. 
THE COURT: Show me where that's --
MR. SCAROLA: That's the defense 
argument that this was irrelevant discovery. 
THE COURT: Show me where that's in the 
complaint about the other alleged victims. 
MR. SCAROLA: We'll have that for you 
in just a moment, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: Let me take a look at that 
and see how it may or may not be conjecture. 
MR. SCAROLA: While we are finding 
that -- we will have that for you in just a 
moment -- your Honor may recall that I 
referenced earlier -- and I have, 
unfortunately, misplaced the copy of the 
federal statute. I should have it -- I 
should have it in just a moment. 
THE COURT: I mean, I'm looking at 
paragraphs 17 and 18, for example, where 
Mr. Epstein alleges, while relative to this 
action, Epstein is currently named as 
defendant in three civil actions alleging 
sexual assault and battery that were handled 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792991

182 
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 
by RRA and his attorneys, including Edwards, 
prior to its implosion -- presuming he means 
RRA's and not Mr. Edwards' implosion -- one 
of which was filed in federal court -- and 
the two in state court that I have already 
identified. The civil actions were filed in 
August and September of 2008. 
Paragraph 18 then says, quote, what is 
clear is a fraudulent and improper 
investment of a Ponzi scheme was, in fact, 
conducted and operated by RRA and certain of 
the named defendants, which scheme directly 
impacted Epstein as a named defendant in 
these civil actions -- referencing the three 
at issue. 
MS. ROCKENBACH: Correct. 
THE COURT: Where is --
MR. SCAROLA: Paragraphs 35 and 36. 
THE COURT: Let's take a look at those. 
Paragraph 35 states, quote, For instance, 
the litigation team relentlessly and 
knowingly pursued flight data and passenger 
manifests regarding flights Epstein took 
with these famous individuals knowing full 
well that no underaged women were on board 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792992

183 
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 
and no illicit activities took place. 
Rothstein and the litigation team also 
inappropriately attempted to take the 
depositions of these celebrities in a 
calculated effort to bolster the marketing 
scam that was taking place, end quote. 
Next paragraph? 
MR. SCAROLA: Next paragraph. 
THE COURT: Quote, one of the 
plaintiffs' counsel -- strike that. 
One of plaintiff's counsel Edwards, 
deposed three of Epstein's pilots and sought 
the deposition of a fourth pilot currently 
serving in Iraq. The pilots were deposed by 
Edwards for over 12 hours, and Edwards never 
asked one question relating to or about 
L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, RRA's clients, as 
it related to transportation on flights of 
RRA clients on any of Epstein's planes. But 
Edwards asked many inflammatory, leading and 
irrelevant questions about the pilots' 
thoughts and beliefs, which will never be 
admissible at trial, which could only have 
been asked for the purpose of pumping the 
cases, and thus by using the deposition to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792993

184 
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 
sell the cases or a part of them to third 
parties. End quote. 
Anything else? 
MR. SCAROLA: Those are two obvious 
references in the complaint to conduct on 
the part of Brad Edwards alleged to have 
been improper and forming part of the basis 
for abuse of process claims. 
THE COURT: The Court's ruling remains 
the same. 
MR. SCAROLA: I never like to argue 
after the Court has already ruled, but there 
is one additional point that I want to make. 
THE COURT: Sure. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I have cited 
in -- we have cited in submissions to the 
Court, specifically the motion in limine 
addressing the scope of admissible evidence 
that we have filed. We have cited the 
provisions of Florida statute 90.404, 
subsection two, commonly known as the 
Williams Rule statute, which talks about 
evidence of other crimes. 
We have also cited the federal rule of 
evidence, Rule 415. And that rule expressly 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792994

185 
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 
permits the introduction in evidence of the 
molestation of other children in any federal 
action, criminal or civil, involving the 
molestation of a child. 
Congress explained -- and quote, That 
in the submission to the Court -- the reform 
effected by these rules is critical to the 
protection of the public from rapists and 
child molesters. It's justified by the 
distinctive characteristics of the cases to 
which it applies. 
"In child molestation cases, a history 
of similar acts tends to be exceptionally 
probative, because it shows an unusual 
disposition of a defendant, a sexual or 
pseudosexual interest in children that 
simply does not exist in ordinary people. 
"Moreover, such cases require reliance 
on child victims, whose credibility can 
readily be intact in the absence of 
substantial corroboration. 
"In such cases, there is a compelling 
public interest in admitting all significant 
evidence that will shed some light on the 
credibility of the change -- excuse me -- of 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792995

186 
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 charge and any denial by the defense." 
So --
THE COURT: And Mr. Scarola, if we were 
trying a sexual molestation case, there may 
be a stronger argument. But the very point 
that I'm making is that we're not trying a 
sexual molestation case, per. Now, there 
may be elements and issues that may arise, 
depending upon the nature of Mr. Epstein's 
position relative to these matters. 
However, it does not change the Court's 
view that these messages taken from a 
message pad at Epstein's home relate to 
others and that the documents related to 
Epstein produced by his houseman, 
Mr. Rodriguez, that relate to others, 
remains irrelevant. And any probative 
value, if found to be relevant, would be 
materially outweighed by the prejudice. 
The Court's decision remains the same. 
I think it's bolstered by the fact that we 
are not trying the child molestation case. 
And the significance of the collateral cases 
is not, in my respectful view, necessarily a 
touchstone of this particular case and this 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792996

187 
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 
particular analysis. 
We are going to have to call it a day. 
I thank you very much, again, for your 
arguments and your input, written and oral. 
Thank you, again. 
Again, thanks to our court reporter and 
our courtroom personnel also for their hard 
work and courtesies. 
Have a good rest of the week. We will 
see you back, if not before, on 
December 5th. 
MR. LINK: Thank you for your time. 
THE COURT: We will take up the 
remaining issues of evidence first, and then 
we will go back to the schedule, which I 
very much appreciate you all providing. We 
will adhere to that schedule as we continue 
on with the motions. 
We will be in recess. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792997