IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, -vs- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion for his Costs and Attorneys' Fees and states: INTRODUCTION On June 2, 2014, Epstein filed his Motion for Fees and Costs pursuant to §768.79 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 26, 2014, Edwards filed his Motion in Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Costs and Fees, asserting therein that Epstein's Proposal for Settlement failed to comply with the requisites delineated in both §768.79 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Edwards submits two arguments to support his assertion that Epstein's Proposal for Settlement was invalid; to wit: "Nile Proposal is invalid because Epstein failed to explain Tonja Haddad, P.A. • EFTA01194446