EpsteinProject.org

Court records

001_28

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

      Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS             Document 1     Filed 06/13/16     Page 1 of 21




Jack Scarola
Florida Bar No.: 169440
Attorney E-Mail(s): jsx@searcylaw.com and
                    mep@searcylaw.com
Primary E-Mail: _scarolateam@searcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9451

                               Attorney for Bradley J. Edwards


                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 In re: SUBPOENA TO BRADLEY J.
 EDWARDS

 Underlying case:                                BRADLEY J. EDWARDS’ MOTION TO
                                                   QUASH SUBPOENA OR, IN THE
 VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff                  ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE
                                                   ORDER AND INCORPORATED
                                                     MEMORANDUM OF LAW
 v.

 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant                                      Case No.

 No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.)

       Subpoena respondent Bradley J. Edwards, a non-party and attorney for the Plaintiff in the

Giuffre v. Maxwell action, hereby moves to quash the subpoena served on him by Ghislaine

Maxwell, the Defendant in the Giuffre v. Maxwell action.

                            BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED

       Edwards requests that this Court quash the subpoena issued by Defendant Maxwell to

Edwards or, in the alternative, enter a protective order barring Maxwell from enforcing the

subpoena. The bases for Edwards’ motion, which are set forth more fully in the Memorandum of

Legal Authority below, are as follows:
      Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS            Document 1       Filed 06/13/16       Page 2 of 21




       1)      The subpoena subjects Edwards to undue burden.
       2)      The information sought in the subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
  

[…]

Open in the archive