HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013399.jpg

Edwards adv. Epstein
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages

confidentiality terms required by Epstein, the cases did not settle for the “minimal value” that
Epstein suggested in his Complaint. Because Epstein relies upon the alleged discrepancy
between the “minimal value” Epstein ascribed to the claims and the substantial value Edwards
sought to recover for his clients, the settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agreed to pay while
these claims against Edwards were pending will be disclosed to the court in-camera.

B. Summary of the Argument

The claims against Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., were frivolous for at least three separate
reasons.

First, because Epstein elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self-
incrimination to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at
the center of his claims, he was barred from prosecuting his case against Edwards. Under the
well-established “sword and shield” doctrine, Epstein could not legitimately seek damages from
Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant
discovery. His case was therefore subject to summary judgment and on the eve of the hearing
seeking that summary judgment Epstein effectively conceded that fact by voluntarily dismissing
his claims.

Second, all of Edwards’ conduct in the prosecution of valid claims against Epstein was
protected by the litigation privilege, a second absolute legal bar to Epstein’s claims effectively
conceded by his voluntary dismissal.

Third, and most fundamentally, Epstein’s lawsuit was not only unsupported by both the
applicable law, it was based on unsupported factual allegations directly contradicted by all of the
6

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013399