IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG • JEFFREY EPSTEIN, • di , Plaintiff, (IIO 55 Oi r173 ta y n c° a ca cs. —c-5,`i'5 1 VS. ce ..._4c3 4?? SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, J. individually, and L.M., individually, F.: , •, •••••, . • `42 N fn 0 Defendant, A'0 REPLY TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S COUNTER-PLAINTIFF. J. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SECOND RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES The principal attack on the sufficiency of Motion for Leave to Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages is to point out the similarity between the proffer supporting that motion and M' Motion for Summary Judgment. Epstein either fails to appreciate or chooses to ignore the fact that the evidence supporting a summary judgment in favor of the defense on the claims that form 4hetasis for a malicious prosecution action is, of necessity, the identical evidence ne,e ary itself. Itf support a claim for punitive damages on the malicious prosecution claim words, for to establish his entitlement to summary judgment on the various claims asserted by Epstein against him, it was necessary for to establish that there were no disputed facts and that the undisputed facts established the propriety of all of actions against Epstein. That same evidence is essential in establishing Epstein's absence of probable cause to support any of Epstein's claims against M. While the EFTA02771785