HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013391.jpg

V. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PRIVILEGE

Absolute immunity must be afforded any act occurring during course of judicial proceeding, regardless of whether act involves defamatory statement or other tortious behavior, such as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding. See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding extends not only to the parties in a proceeding but to judges, witnesses, and counsel as well. Id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common-law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in preparation for and connected to pending litigation are covered by the absolute immunity conferred by the litigation privilege. See DelMonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2010), review granted, 47 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 2010). The privilege extends to statements in judicial proceedings or those “necessarily preliminary thereto. See Stewart v. Sun Sentinel Co., 695 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(an attorney's delivery of a copy of a notice of claim to a reporter, which notice was a required filing prior to instituting suit, was protected by absolute immunity).

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, defendant, the Court should grant defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., summary judgment in his favor on the only remaining claim filed against him by plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein, and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

22

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013391