EFTA00804571

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 
time that Jeffrey Epstein filed the complaint. 
What has Jeffrey Epstein told us about what 
Jeffrey Epstein knew as of the time he filed 
the complaint? What he's told us is, "I refuse 
to answer on the grounds that it may tend to 
incriminate me. I assert my Fifth Amendment 
privilege." 
THE COURT: And if I'm not mistaken, 
that's all we're going to know. 
MR. SCAROLA: That's all we're going to 
know because it has also -- it has also been 
represented repeatedly, and this Court has made 
rulings based upon that representation, 
Mr. Epstein will not attend this trial. He 
will not testify, he will not attend this 
trial. So, the argument --
THE COURT: And just for the record, that 
has to be emphasized here when it comes to the, 
again, alleged late filing of these "public 
records" of the victims here. 
And the fact that Mr. Epstein will not be 
at trial, and his testimony essentially 
consisted of, as far as the substantive 
information that was transmitted at the 
deposition or at the depositions, I, I can't 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804651

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 
remember if it was more than one, but the one I 
do recall is the one that's been emphasized 
here regarding the term "ginned up," and that 
is what was your motivation for suing 
Mw
Rothstein, Edwards and 
as so as to bring to 
the attention of whomever it was to be brought 
that these claims were ginned up, and there was 
an attempt to somehow defraud those who were 
investing in Mr. Rothstein's Ponzi scheme or, 
again, words to that effect. I don't have it 
in front of me. But that was the gist of the 
information that was proffered. 
Again, going back to something that 
perhaps I shouldn't at this point, but I am at 
a loss that if he's not going to testify here, 
and that is essentially the sum and substance 
of his substantive testimony pertaining to the 
rationale of filing the lawsuit, how any of 
this is even able to be introduced as part of 
his defense, particularly whereas here we're 
talking about many of these entries coming well 
after the alleged incidents involving 
Mr. Epstein and these three individuals. 
MR. LINK: Your Honor, may I respond to 
that? 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804652

83 
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: And all of them coming --
all of them coming after the lawsuit was filed 
and could not possibly have formed part of the 
basis of probable cause, because he had no idea 
about any of this. 
THE COURT: And, respectfully, also coming 
in just a few months ago. 
Yes, Mr. Link? 
MR. LINK: I didn't 
I thought we had 
made an agreement we weren't doing 
admissibility --
THE COURT: We're not. But, again, it's 
somehow -- or somewhat of a futile exercise, in 
my view, and we all, I think, have an aversion 
to not wasting time, or an aversion to wasting 
time. 
So as to -- to look at this rationally and 
to look at it practically, and attempting to 
somehow cobble together how this could even 
possibly be used in this Court in this case. 
MR. LINK: May I explain, Your Honor? 
Because I can answer the question. 
THE COURT: Yes. 
MR. LINK: So Mr. Edwards has the burden 
of proof, not Mr. Epstein. The case law 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804653

84 
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 
suggests he has a very high burden of proof to 
demonstrate malicious prosecution. Mr. Edwards 
is going to get on the stand. I must be 
allowed to cross-examine him. I don't have to 
sit back, let him testify to anything he wants 
and not be able to cross-examine him because 
Mr. Epstein's not going to testify. 
THE COURT: I have no problem with 
excuse me just a minute, please. 
As you are very much aware, I have no 
problem with a vigorous cross-examination. The 
word "cross" is not -- is meant as, at least in 
part, has connotations of anger. So, I have no 
problem with that. 
What I am suggesting, however, is 
Mr. Edwards was deposed, you said, by you, and 
I presume by way of court order --
MR. LINK: Incriminated, yes, sir. 
THE COURT: -- in the latter part of 
December of 2017, is that what you said? 
MR. LINK: I believe that's right, it was 
December. 
THE COURT: All right. Now, you have 
every right to cross-examine him. My point in, 
again, trying my best in my role as a 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804654

85 
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 
nonadvocate, and that is as a neutral party 
trying my best to level the playing field and 
now confronted with from 400 -- numbers 445 
through 543, so approximately 100 public 
records revelations. 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: And I use that term 
purposefully. Because what I presume to be the 
answer is, when you took Mr. Edwards' 
deposition in December of 2017, he was not 
provided with these documents to be able to 
discuss them, to be able to review them, even 
if it was at his deposition you said, look, 
here's public records that you probably are not 
totally aware of, you may be, you may not be, 
but here they are. 
Mr. Scarola may have objected, may have 
requested the termination of the deposition to 
seek a protective order so that he, 
Mr. Edwards, would have the opportunity to 
properly prepare his testimony in relation to 
these records. Because if I'm gathering what I 
think I'm going to gather by way of your 
response --
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804655

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: -- he wasn't given these 
records at his deposition, correct? 
MR. LINK: They weren't, and I never would 
do that in a deposition, Your Honor. Why do I 
have to show him my cross? What in the rule 
says I have to confront him at deposition with 
exhibits that I want to use at trial? 
THE COURT: Again, is this a question or 
is this rhetorical? 
MR. LINK: No, it's a statement, because I 
don't know of any rules --
THE COURT: When you start a sentence with 
"what," it sounds to me like a question. 
MR. LINK: It was, and I withdrew it. 
THE COURT: Very well. But my response 
would have been, had you not withdrawn it, is 
the overarching, the pervasive rule of we are 
not going to competence trial by ambush. 
MR. LINK: Sir, that's why they're listed 
on the exhibit list. I don't have to ask him 
during deposition. 
THE COURT: But the point I'm making, 
Mr. Link, and I apologize for my facial and 
hand gestures. That wasn't meant to be 
anything that was directed to anyone. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804656

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. LINK: It's okay. 
THE COURT: My respectful point is that in 
order to properly prepare for one of the most 
critical parts of a case, that being the 
plaintiff's deposition, especially where here 
it's coming almost ten years after a given case 
has been filed, that that party has the 
opportunity to prepare themselves with what is 
going to be confronting them relative to the 
material elements of the case. 
And that brings me precisely to what we're 
dealing with now, and that is if at the time in 
December we had set this case for trial in 
2017, again, we're now into almost the trial 
being reset for December, we freeze that time 
period, we don't have these public records 
listed as exhibits. We fast-forward a bit to 
when I set the trial again, and that was what 
month? 
MR. VITALE: March, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: March. Recognizing the time 
that we're dealing with here, the length that 
everyone has to, really, except for you and 
Ms. Rockenbach, but including myself, for the 
last almost four years, having to deal with 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804657

oc 
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 case, with various iteration of counsel 
for Mr. Epstein, and from Mr. Edwards' 
standpoint and from Mr. Epstein's standpoint, 
having to deal with this for the last close to 
ten years. Certainly for Mr. Scarola's 
standpoint, having to deal with this case since 
2009. That's a long time. 
And my purpose here, whether it be this 
case or any other case that I preside over, is 
a process, and I may have mentioned these to 
you-all. I wouldn't be here unless I had an 
abiding respect to maintain what I perceive to 
be the requisite process. 
What does that mean? That doesn't have 
anything less of a meaning than fundamental 
fairness. What is the right thing to do. I 
don't have to represent a client. That's the 
beauty of the job, maybe one of the few. But I 
don't have to answer to anyone other than the 
law, and my own legal, and to a degree, moral 
compass when it comes to making rules. 
And I'm not using the word "morality" as 
it has to do with anybody involved in this 
particular case. It may have been a poor 
choice of words. But essentially what I mean 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804658

89 
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 that is when I look in the mirror at the end 
of the day, can I respond to the one singular 
question, "Did I do the right thing by those 
who came before me, no matter how rich, no 
matter how poor, no matter how vilified, no 
matter how promoted or well thought of?" 
So the point I'm trying to make here is 
precisely the fact that in this particular 
setting, when the 
subject, then, to 
at that time when 
trial in December 
plaintiff is deposed and is 
impeachment, not being aware 
the case was teed up for 
of 2017, which coincidentally 
was the time his deposition was taken, and then 
if we fast-forward and we freeze March when, 
but for a technical issue that arose, having 
nothing to do with the Edwards versus Epstein 
case, but simply having to do with the 
corollary of Epstein versus Rothstein, and that 
technicality, these case -- this case would 
have been tried in March of 2018. 
See? Without this listing of almost 198 
public record documents. And there's probably 
more than 98, many of these are multipages, 
obviously. But 98 named exhibits, which are 
all potentially used as fodder for 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804659

90 
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 
cross-examination of the plaintiff, who until 
these were listed, wasn't aware that they were 
going to even be utilized. 
Thank you for listening. Go ahead. 
MR. LINK: No, my pleasure. I'd like to 
make just a few points that I think I need to 
for the record, Your Honor. 
One, the plaintiff has known about every 
one of the emails because he was --
THE COURT: I'm not talking about emails, 
I'm talking about these public records now. 
MR. LINK: I know. But he's known about 
the emails. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MR. LINK: Two, I don't believe I have any 
obligation under any rule of civil procedure or 
case that I know of to ever, taking the 
deposition of a plaintiff or anyone else, to 
show them documents that I intend to use in 
cross. I may choose to, but I don't have to. 
Three, all of these documents have been 
listed since at least May, if not from before. 
THE COURT: Well, I don't know that. All 
of these --
MR. LINK: Have been listed since May. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804660

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'm going by way of your color 
coding. 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
THE COURT: And that yellow color coding 
on all of those 98 public records exhibits have 
been identified as newly added as of May of 
2018. 
MR. LINK: They were on our December 
clerk's trial list, Your Honor. December 2017. 
So they have been listed --
MS. ROCKENBACH: March. 
MR. LINK: March, apologize. They've been 
listed since March of 2018, every single one of 
them. So they were not just shown to them, 
they have had -- this trial -- what is that --
eight months of time with them. Eight months. 
I also want to point out that not once 
during the eight months did counsel for 
plaintiff ask this Court for any additional 
discovery based on the exhibits that were 
listed. And this Court gave us permission to 
do that. 
I also want to point out, Your Honor, that 
if there's any depositions or discovery that 
plaintiff needs to take, we have no objection 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804661

92 
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 
under Binger to opening up discovery for them 
to do that. So that if there is any prejudice, 
which we don't believe exists, can be cured by 
their taking discovery. 
Next, although it is not what we have 
asked for, if, in fact, the trial needs to be 
moved 30 to 60 days, we will not object to 
that, so that any prejudice that can by 
eliminated can be eliminated. 
THE COURT: I'm not going to do that. 
MR. LINK: I understand. 
THE COURT: There is no way I'm going to 
do that. 
MR. LINK: I understand. 
THE COURT: It would be an absolute --
that would be 
if I did that, Mr. Link, would 
be an example of what I just said earlier that 
would be when I look in the mirror, I would 
probably have to resign --
MR. LINK: Your Honor, I understand that. 
THE COURT: -- before I would be able to 
adequately answer to my own compass. 
MR. LINK: I understand that, sir. But I 
need to offer that under the cases I've read 
under Binger, so that I have offered solutions 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804662

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 
to ameliorate their prejudice. Whether the 
plaintiff wants to do it or the Court wants to 
agree, I understand that's your prerogative. 
I just wanted to make sure, because I've 
read all the Binger cases, that I make 
available to the plaintiff, and to this Court, 
every opportunity to cure whatever prejudice 
they think they have. I don't believe they've 
had any since they've had these emails, they've 
had these public documents, they've had 
everything on our list since no later than 
March of 2018. 
MR. SCAROLA: May I conclude my argument, 
please, Your Honor? 
THE COURT: Well, he's throwing it back 
into your court. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: And I agree it's the issue 
when he's saying -- he's saying that it was 
dilatory on the part of Mr. Edwards and counsel 
not following through with these records that 
were listed in March. And I'm only going to 
the public records issue right now that were 
listed in March of 2018 in preparation for the 
then-March trial. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804663

94 
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: Your Honor --
THE COURT: And hence, you've waived any 
reasonable objection as it relates to the late 
filing of those public records entries. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, the documents 
were listed in March. The plaintiff responded 
with a motion to strike the documents listed in 
March. All of those exhibits were stricken by 
court order. We don't need to prepare to 
respond to stricken exhibits. We are here 
because they are again attempting to list 
documents that were already stricken by Your 
Honor. 
So, the suggestion that we have somehow 
not been diligent with respect to exhibits that 
have been stricken, I suggest to Your Honor is 
not fair. 
THE COURT: Were they stricken because 
they were late-filed, was that the reason? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. They were stricken 
because they were late-filed. 
THE COURT: So now they're saying, Well, 
for whatever reason, and I've already gone 
through my own analysis relevant to the 
rationale of the case not going to trial, which 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804664

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 
had nothing to do with the Edwards versus 
Epstein case, but a technicality dealing with 
the other matter regarding Epstein versus 
Rothstein, now they're saying, Well, you've had 
eight months to deal with them and you haven't 
dealt with them. 
MR. SCAROLA: But we haven't had eight 
months to deal with them, sir, because they 
were stricken. And respectfully, I don't know 
how a burden can be imposed upon us to deal 
with stricken exhibits. What we are here 
addressing is a new attempt to have this Court 
revisit rulings that Your Honor previously 
made. 
And the same arguments were made earlier. 
Look at the pretrial stipulation. They 
stipulated that we could use these exhibits. 
There's no prejudice. All of those arguments 
were addressed. And ultimately Your Honor 
struck all of those exhibits. 
And there has been no delay on our part 
with regard to challenging the propriety of 
these late-added exhibits. We responded 
promptly, and they are the ones who are now 
calling up this motion, their motion to add 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804665

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 
additional exhibits, they are calling it up 
32 days, 33 days before trial. 
THE COURT: When did I enter that order 
relative to the disallowance of any further 
discovery without court order? 
MR. VITALE: December. 
MR. LINK: 2017, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: December 2017? 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
MR. VITALE: I think it was actually 
November 27th, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: I just know it's somewhere in 
one of these books. 
MR. LINK: Just for the record, while 
you're looking, Your Honor --
MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry, but... 
THE COURT: Mr. Scarola hasn't finished, 
and I'll give you five minutes to rebut. 
MR. LINK: Thank you. 
MR. SCAROLA: The last point that counsel 
makes, the last category of documents are 
documents --
MR. LINK: Your Honor, I have a copy of 
the order, if you want it. 
THE COURT: Just give me the date. I 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804666

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 
remember it. 
MR. LINK: November 27th, sir. 
THE COURT: November 27th, '17. Thank you 
very much. I appreciate that. 
MR. LINK: You're welcome. 
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Vitale, as 
well. 
Go ahead, Mr. Scarola. 
MR. SCAROLA: -- are documents that relate 
to Brad Edwards' claim for damages. 
Brad Edwards' claim for damages was in the 
malicious prosecution claim from the day that 
it was filed. Brad Edwards' claim for 
emotional distress arising out of the malicious 
prosecution has been in this case since day 
one. There simply cannot be a viable argument 
based upon some suggestion that they're just 
now realizing they need to defend against the 
mental anguish claim. That's just silly. 
It has been in this case since day one, 
and we ought not 30 days before trial to be 
placed in a position where we must deal with 
exhibits allegedly relating to that claim for 
damages that has been in this case for many, 
many years. 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804667

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 simply, again, is another 
circumstance where Jeffrey Epstein's current 
counsel takes issue with the quality or 
quantity of the work done by Jeffrey Epstein's 
privately retained prior counsel. 
That's an issue between Jeffrey Epstein 
and his privately retained prior counsel. It 
is not an issue with which either we or this 
Court should be obliged to deal on the eve of 
this very, very, very long-delayed trial. 
So, those, Your Honor, are the general 
arguments that I wanted to make in response to 
the points that were made by opposing counsel. 
I have provided Your Honor with an outline with 
regard to Binger. I would adopt all of the 
positions that are stated in that outline 
without having to repeat them for Your Honor. 
I think they're there, and as I said, I'm 
confident that Your Honor is well aware of not 
only what Binger stands for, but what Binger 
doesn't stand for, and that is that inquiry 
stops with the issue of prejudice. 
Although even if it did, even if it did, 
there's absolutely no question about the fact 
that we would be dramatically prejudiced if the 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804668

99 
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 
door were to be opened to all of these new 
exhibits at this point in time for all of the 
reasons that I've previously stated. 
Thank you, sir. 
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Link, I 
promised you five minutes, and it is 
MR. LINK: I'm on the clock, sir. 
THE COURT: -- 12:32, and you'll have 
until 12:37. 
MR. LINK: Yes, sir. 
First, just so the record is clear, the 
public documents that we talked about, the 
public records were delivered on a flash drive 
in February, so they have had the actual public 
records since February of 2018, Your Honor. 
Second, you probably recall that this 
motion was noticed for two days to be heard in 
July, and by agreement of the parties we pulled 
this particular motion off the Court's calendar 
that we argued, so that we could attend 
mediation, and we did that. So it was by 
agreement that the motion was not heard back in 
July, Your Honor. 
Third, Mr. Scarola wants to argue about 
this freeze in time at the time the complaint 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804669

100 
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 
is filed. And back in, I think it was December 
of last year, I said to this Court, those very 
words, that we should be looking only at what 
is known to everybody from the date the 
complaint was filed backward. 
Mr. Scarola stood up and said, No, sir, we 
are also challenging the continuation of the 
lawsuit. 
You can't have it both ways, Judge. You 
can't say that the defendant is precluded from 
talking about anything going forward after they 
filed the suit, but the plaintiff can. All the 
defendant can do is talk about what existed 
before the suit was filed. 
So, we have to have a meeting of the minds 
here. Are we talking only about the original 
filing? If that's the case, then nothing, 
frankly, we're talking about would ever come 
into evidence. It's only if we're going to 
focus on the allegations in the complaint, 
which is what this Court ruled, and 
Mr. Scarola's assertion that he wants to 
prosecute the continuation aspect of the 
malicious prosecution. 
If we're going to have the continuation 
Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 
EFTA00804670