IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE H1- 1 EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE ADDRESSING SCOPE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), hereby files this Appendix in support of his Response in Opposition to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Second Supplement to Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of Admissible Evidence. INTRODUCTION In his Motion, Edwards argues that "Epstein cannot establish that he had probable cause to sue Bradley Edwards by relying upon evidence that he did not know about at the time he filed suit. All testimony and evidence regarding the internal activities at RRA learned subsequent to December 7, 2009 and offered to support the existence of probable cause are irrelevant to issues in the pending proceeding and should be excluded from evidence on that basis." (Mot. at 1 2.) It is obvious that Edwards does not want the jury to see the evidence because it contradicts the positions he has taken in this case in his sworn deposition testimony and will ultimately result EFTA00806694