UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

IN RE: CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR

ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., CHAPTER 11

Debtor.

_____________________________________/

JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT

Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause Why Fowler 

White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt and Scheduling Evidentiary Show 

Cause Hearing (D.E. 6366), submits this Written Opening Statement, and states:

INTRODUCTION

A. The Court’s November 30, 2010 Agreed Order.

The November 30, 2010, Agreed Order (the “Agreed Order”), which was drafted and 

approved by Farmer Jaffe and Edwards, was designed solely to keep Fowler White from making 

copies for itself of the documents it was Bates stamping and reproducing for Farmer Jaffe’s and 

the Special Master’s review. The Order provides, in pertinent part:

The Motion for Relief From Amended Order (D.E. #1068) and to 

Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents 

in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party Farmer, Jaffe, 

Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. (“Farmer”), was 

adequately resolved by agreement of the parties as follows. The law 

firm of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., will print a hard copy of all off 

the documents contained on the discs with Bates numbers added, 

and will provide a set of copied, stamped documents to the Special 

Master and an identical set to Farmer, who will use same to create 

its privilege log. Farmer agrees to prepare that portion of the 

privilege log relating to emails on or before December 15, 2010, 

with the remaining portion due thirty days from the date of this 

order, subject to other court orders. Fowler White will not retain 

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 9
2

any copies of the documents contained on the discs provided to it, 

nor shall any images or copies of said documents be retained in the 

memory of Fowler White’s copiers. Should it be determined that 

Fowler White or Epstein retained images or copies of the subject 

documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains 

jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad Edwards or 

his client.

(D.E. 1194.)

There is only one sentence in the Agreed Order that applies to Epstein: “Should it be 

determined that ... Epstein retained images or copies of the subject documents on its [sic] computer 

or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad Edwards 

or his client.” (D.E. 1194, at 2.) 

The Agreed Order was a result of Farmer Jaffe not wanting to bear the copying cost 

associated with responding to Epstein’s 2010 Subpoena directed to the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & 

Adler Trustee. In an effort to resolve that issue, Fowler White suggested printing and Bates 

stamping the documents in-house, and then providing copies to Farmer Jaffe and the Special 

Master. Importantly, the Agreed Order was focused on preventing Fowler White from 

intentionally keeping copies of documents from the disc at the time the documents on the disc 

were being Bates stamped and printed in December 2010 or leaving an image on its copiers or 

computers to be accessed at a later time. The parties to the nearly eight-year-old Agreed Order in 

no way contemplated that the very narrowly drawn prohibitions set forth therein would serve as 

the basis for a contempt finding against Epstein under the unforeseeable circumstances at hand, 

particularly where there is simply no evidence of even a single instance of misconduct by Epstein 

relating to the disc or any documents therein. 

The “evidence” in this case points to a single conclusion: That Epstein, from the day the 

disc was delivered to Fowler White for copying in December 2010 through January 2018, did not 

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 2 of 9
3

have the disc, know about the disc or receive from Fowler White any of the documents that it 

copied pursuant to the Agreed Order. Thus, it was impossible for Epstein to have “retained” any 

images or copies from the disc in violation of the Agreed Order.

B. Link & Rockenbach’s Appearance in the State Court Proceeding and the 

Circumstances of the Disc’s Discovery.

On November 1, 2017, Epstein’s counsel, Link & Rockenbach, PA, made its first 

appearance in Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards and L.M., No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG 

pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida (the “state court 

proceeding”). At that time, Link & Rockenbach had not yet received Epstein’s files from one of 

his former counsel -- Fowler White Burnett, P.A. (“Fowler White”), whose representation of 

Epstein terminated over six years ago in May 2012. Epstein asked Fowler White to turn over his

files to Link & Rockenbach.

On January 10, 2018, Link & Rockenbach traveled to Miami, Florida, to review Fowler 

White’s files associated with its representation of Epstein, which filled approximately thirty-six 

boxes. Fowler White, however, was unwilling to release its boxes at that time, so Link & 

Rockenbach flagged items to be copied. Inside one of the boxes was a disc labeled “Epstein Bate 

Stamp” (“the disc”) which Link & Rockenbach flagged for reproduction. Link & Rockenbach did 

not review the contents of any discs during the January 10, 2018, document review. Epstein was 

not present.

On February 1, 2018, Link & Rockenbach received three boxes from Fowler White 

containing copies of the items flagged for reproduction. Link & Rockenbach’s review of the 

contents of the disc began on February 25, 2018. That review revealed 27,542 pages of e-mails

that were consecutively Bates stamped, which did not contain a pre-fix indicating who produced 

them, or any watermark, confidentiality or privilege designation. Of these, Link & Rockenbach 

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 3 of 9
4

reviewed approximately 5,000 pages, and ultimately identified numerous e-mails that it deemed 

pertinent to Epstein’s defense in the state court proceeding.

C. Epstein Testified that He Never Received the Disc and Never Saw Copies of 

Documents Printed from it Before February 2018.

The evidence will show that Epstein was not provided with the disc by Fowler White and

had no knowledge that the disc existed at all before 2018. Epstein never received a copy of the 

27,000+ pages when Fowler White provided copies to Farmer Jaffe and the Special Master in 

2010, never had the disc and never knew that it existed in the bowels of Fowler White’s file room.

When asked about the disc at his deposition on October 13, 2018, Epstein testified as follows:

Q. How is it that you can tell us under oath today that you had 

no prior knowledge of Fowler White having come into 

possession of a disc relating to your litigation?

A. So, to be clear, to the best of my recollection today, the 

answer is no. I have no recollection whatsoever.

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 1, 25:4-10.) Also see Epstein, 10/13/18, Part 1, 25:24-26:8.

Q. Have you ever communication with any agent of Fowler 

White about the disc that was turned over by them to Link & 

Rockenbach?

A. No. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Have you ever communicated with Tonja or Fred Haddad 

about the Fowler White disc?

A. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Did you ever receive a copy of the disc itself?

A. No.

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 1, 56:4-13.)

Q. Do you see paragraph six in the affidavit before you?

A. Yes

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 4 of 9
5

Q. And it says, quote, I have never seen the CD nor received a 

copy of it, close quote. Is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 2, 15:19-25.)

Q. When did you first become aware of your attorneys’ 

possession of a disc containing information about L.M.?

***

A. After February [2018].

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 2, 20:18-25.)

Q. Do you know if there were any images or copies of 

documents retained in the memory of Fowler White’s 

copiers?

A. I do not.

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 2, 36:23-37:1.)

Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not Fowler White 

retained images of copies of the subject documents on a 

computer or otherwise?

A. I do not.

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 2, 37:11-14.)

Q. Between November 2010 and February 2018, did you have 

any knowledge as to whether or not a disc that was the 

subject of Exhibit 5 was retained by Fowler White?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you know if, in fact, a disc that is the subject of Exhibit 

5 was retained by Fowler White?

A. I do not.

(Epstein 10/13/18, Part 2, 37:15-22.)

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 5 of 9
6

As explained in greater detail below, the evidence will show that the Order to Show Cause 

should be discharged, and no sanction against Epstein imposed, for two reasons: 1) Epstein never 

violated the Agreed Order; and 2) no sanction could either coerce Epstein into compliance or 

compensate Farmer Jaffe, Edwards or Intervenor L.M. for actual, compensatory losses—because 

they have none. Based on the evidence that has been and will be elicited in this show cause 

proceeding, Epstein respectfully requests that this Court discharge its Order to Show Cause and

deny the requests of Farmer Jaffe, Edwards and Intervenor L.M. for Epstein to be held in contempt 

of court or for any other sanctions against him.

THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SHOULD BE 

DISCHARGED AND NO SANCTIONS IMPOSED BECAUSE EPSTEIN DID NOT 

VIOLATE THE AGREED ORDER

The testimony in the depositions authorized by this Court, the sworn declarations of fact 

and the evidence to be elicited at the evidentiary hearing on this Court’s Order to Show Cause 

show that Epstein never had the disc, did not know Fowler White had the disc and Fowler White 

never provided Epstein with the disc or copies from the disc and that, without having even known 

of their existence or ever having received them, it is, therefore, impossible for Epstein to have 

retained any images or copies from the disc in violation of the Agreed Order. Accordingly, there 

is no basis to hold Epstein in statutory contempt or impose other sanctions under 11 U.S.C. 

§ 105(a).

There are no disputed facts material to this show cause proceeding regarding Epstein. The 

Movants have acknowledged that Epstein did not have the disc or even know of the disc’s existence 

before being advised by Link & Rockenbach in February 2018. Further, Epstein has testified that 

he only received select documents from the disc in February 2018. The select documents were 

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 6 of 9
7

provided to Epstein after Link & Rockenbach located the disc in Fowler White’s boxes in February 

2018. 

 As this Court will see, there is not a shred of evidence that Epstein knew about the disc 

before learning about it from Link & Rockenbach in February 2018. Farmer Jaffe, Edwards and 

Intervenor L.M. bear the burden to demonstrate that Epstein violated the Agreed Order by clear 

and convincing evidence. However, Movants will admit that Epstein did not know the disc existed 

while it sat, for more than seven years, in Fowler White’s file room. Epstein had no knowledge of 

Fowler White’s actions and, regardless of what Fowler White did or did not do, Epstein did not 

consent to any material action or omission by Fowler White. Epstein has repeatedly informed 

Farmer Jaffe, Edwards, Intervenor L.M. and this Court that he was never provided with a copy of 

the disc or its contents when Fowler White provided copies of documents to Farmer Jaffe and the 

Special Master in 2010 or thereafter, and only learned in February 2018 of the disc’s existence and 

its contents. The Court has properly indicated that it is not considering the imposition of sanctions 

against Epstein for conduct occurring in the state court proceeding in 2018.

At the conclusion of the show cause proceeding, therefore, based on the evidence, Epstein 

will respectfully request that the Court discharge the Order to Show Cause and deny all claims for 

relief by Farmer Jaffe, Edwards and Intervenor L.M. Epstein never violated the Agreed Order.

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 7 of 9
8

CONCLUSION

There is no material fact in dispute between Epstein and Farmer Jaffe, Edwards and 

Intervenor L.M. That is, the Movants for contempt have no evidence (in fact, they have admitted 

that they have none) that Epstein had the disc, knew about the disc or had any documents from the 

disc before February 2018.

Accordingly, Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court discharge its Order to 

Show Cause, deny Movants’ request for Epstein to be held in contempt of court and to deny 

Movants’ requests for sanctions and any other relief.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 24, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

was served electronically to all registered users on the CM/ECF system, which includes counsel 

identified on the service list below.

RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & 

COHEN, PLLC

101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1800

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

(954) 462-8000; (954) 462-4300 [fax]

By: /s/ Chad P. Pugatch 

 CHAD P. PUGATCH (FBN 220582)

cpugatch@rprslaw.com

- AND –

I hereby certify that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to practice in this 

Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A).

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 8 of 9
9

LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA

1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 930

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

(561) 847-4408; (561) 855-2891 [fax]

By: /s/ Scott J. Link

SCOTT J. LINK (FBN 602991)

scott@linkrocklaw.com

Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein

SERVICE LIST

Jack Scarola

Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.

2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard

West Palm Beach, FL 33409

mmccann@searcylaw.com

jsx@searcylaw.com

scarolateam@searcylaw.com

Counsel for Bradley J. Edwards

Bradley J. Edwards

Brittany N. Henderson

Edwards Pottinger LLC

425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268

brad@epllc.com

brittany@epllc.com

Counsel for Farmer Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, 

Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.

Paul G. Cassell

S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of 

Utah

332 S. University St.

Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730

cassellp@law.utah.edu

Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe

Peter E. Shapiro

Shapiro Law

8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 3000

Plantation, FL 33322

pshapiro@shapirolawpa.com

Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe

Niall T. McLachlan

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 4200

Miami, FL 33131

nmclachlan@cfjblaw.com

Counsel for Fowler White Burnett, P.A.

Isaac M. Marcushamer

Berger Singerman LLP

1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900

Miami, FL 33131

imarcushamer@bergersingerman.com

Counsel for Liquidating Trustee

Case 09-34791-RAM Doc 6491 Filed 10/24/18 Page 9 of 9