EFTA00603608.pdf

Filing # 31809747 E-Filed 09/08/2015 04:29:22 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS & COMPLETE RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ ("Dershowitz") respectfully moves this Court for entry of an Order that (a) overrules the objections asserted by Plaintiffs BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("Edwards") and PAUL G. CASSELL ("Cassell") in response to Dershowitz's First Set of Document Requests and First Set of Interrogatories; (b) compels Edwards and Cassell to produce any and all documents responsive to Dershowitz's First Set of Document Requests; and (c) compels Edwards and Cassell to provide complete responses to Dershowitz's First Set of Interrogatories. In support of this motion, Dershowitz states as follows: BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this defamation action against Dershowitz on January 6, 2015. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Dershowitz defamed them by "initiat[ing] a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of [Edwards] and [Cassell] accusing them of EFTA00603608 intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against [Dershowitz] without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment" — even though Dershowitz "knew [the pleading containing the false and outrageous allegations by Plaintiffs' client, Jane Doe No. 3, about Dershowitz] to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading." Exhibit A, Compl. 1 17. On February 11, 2015, Dershowitz served a First Set of Document Requests on each of the Plaintiffs, individually, along with a First Set of Interrogatories on each of the Plaintiffs, individually (together, the "Discovery Requests"). On March 13, 2015, Plaintiffs served their responses to Dershowitz's First Sets of Interrogatories. See Exhibit B (the "Interrogatory Responses"). Throughout the Interrogatory Responses, Plaintiffs raised boilerplate, unfounded objections and conclusorily asserted that some or all of the information sought by Dershowitz is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. See id. Also on March 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their responses and objections to Dershowitz's First Set of Document Requests (the "Original Responses"). See Exhibit C. Plaintiffs did not actually produce a single document, however, until late July 2015. On August 28, 2015, and following several discovery conferences between counsel, Plaintiffs served supplemental responses to Dershowitz's First Sets of Document Requests to withdraw certain objections and otherwise clarify their responses. See Exhibit D (the "Supplemental Responses"). In the Supplemental Responses, Plaintiffs continued to raise baseless form objections and also continued to assert conclusorily that the documents Dershowitz seeks are (1) not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and/or (2) protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Id. 2 EFTA00603609  ARGUMENT As set forth below, many of Plaintiffs' objections to the Discovery Requests are unfounded and should be overruled. Moreover, Plaintiffs' document production and Interrogatory Responses were deficient in a number of respects, even putting aside the validity of their objections. Accordingly, Dershowitz seeks an order from the Court (a) overruling Plaintiffs' objections to Dershowitz's Discovery Requests; (b) compelling Plaintiffs to produce in a timely manner all documents responsive to Dershowitz's First Set of Document Requests; and (c) compelling Plaintiffs to provide complete responses to Dershowitz's First Set of Interrogatories in a timely manner. 1. Plaintiffs have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive documents and information by bringing this defamation action and placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz and the adequacy of their investigation into those allegations. Plaintiffs asserted the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine as a basis for withholding material responsive to the Discovery Requests seeking information and documents concerning: (1) Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz asserted in the action captioned Jane Doe #1, et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "Federal Action"); (2) Plaintiffs' investigation into Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz; (3) Plaintiffs' assertion in the Complaint that Dershowitz was an alleged participant in the criminal conduct committed by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"); and (4) Jane Doe No. 3's whereabouts and activities during the time when she claims to have been "sex slave" for Epstein. See Exhibit B, Interrogatory Responses, 3 EFTA00603610 Nos. 13, 21; Exhibit D, Supplemental Responses, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35.1 Plaintiffs cannot properly assert privilege objections in response to Dershowitz's Discovery Requests seeking these categories of information and documents. By filing this defamation action and placing at issue both the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz and the adequacy of their investigation into those allegations, Plaintiffs have waived any right to rely on the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other potentially applicable privilege or protection. The Florida Supreme Court has long recognized that "when a party has filed a claim, based upon a matter ordinarily privileged, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence, we think that he has waived his right to insist, in pretrial discovery proceedings, that the matter is privileged." Saving v. Luciano, 92 So. 2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1957); see also Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975) (where the party asserting the privilege placed the protected information at issue through some affirmative act for his own benefit, allowing the privilege to protect against the disclosure of such information would be manifestly unfair to the opposing party). An "at-issue" waiver occurs when: (1) assertion of the privilege was a result of some affirmative act, such asfiling suit, by the asserting party; (2) through this affirmative act, the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense. Plaintiffs have to date failed to provide any sort of privilege log to support their broad assertions of the attorney-client privilege and the work product protection as a basis for withholding documents and information responsive to Dershowitz's Discovery Requests. Plaintiffs have advised that they intend to serve a privilege log in the near future. Any issues regarding the adequacy of that privilege log will therefore be addressed in a separate motion to compel. 4 EFTA00603611 Id. at 581 (emphasis added); see also Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444, 447-48 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (applying the Hearn test to hold that, by engaging in the affirmative act of filing suit, the plaintiff injected into "the very soul of this litigation" the attorney-client communications he sought to withhold and thus "waived the right to assert the attorney-client privilege with regard to these documents"). Here, as in Pitney-Bowes, all three elements of the at-issue doctrine are established. First, Plaintiffs are asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product protection to withhold documents and information in a defamation action they filed. Thus, their assertion of privilege is the direct result of their own affirmative act in filing suit against Dershowitz for the purpose of recovering damages. Second, in bringing this defamation action, Plaintiffs have made the information and documents they seek to withhold directly relevant to the issues in dispute. To prevail in this action, Plaintiffs must substantiate their allegation that Dershowitz defamed them by "initiat[ing] a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of [Edwards] and [Cassell] accusing them of intentionally lying in theirfiling, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against [Dershowitz] without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment" — even though Dershowitz "knew [the filing in the Federal Action containing the allegations about Dershowitz] to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading." Exhibit A, Compl. I 17 (emphasis added). In other words, to prove that Dershowitz committed defamation, Plaintiffs must establish — among other things2 — (i) that they conducted 2 Under Florida law, a defamation plaintiff must establish the following elements: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a 5 EFTA00603612 an investigation regarding the credibility of Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz, and (ii) that the allegations asserted against Dershowitz by Jane Doe No. 3 in the Federal Action were, in fact, "well-founded." The only way for Plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof is through the use of information that might otherwise be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. As just one illustrative example, Plaintiffs cannot establish the fact of their investigation into the credibility of Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz (let alone the adequacy of that investigation) without disclosing the documents "concerning their investigation of Jane Doe #3" (sought in Request No. 31) and the documents they referred to or relied upon in preparing the filing in the Federal Action (sought in Request No. 34). Third, allowing Plaintiffs to withhold responsive documents on the basis of the attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine would deny Dershowitz access to information that is vital to his defense. Among other affirmative defenses, Dershowitz has alleged that, to the extent any of his purportedly defamatory statements are deemed to contain assertions of fact rather than constitutionally protected expressions of opinion, those factual assertions are true. It would be inequitable to preclude Dershowitz from proving this affirmative defense, which is exactly what would result if Plaintiffs' assertions of privilege are upheld. Moreover, Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to unilaterally pick and choose which documents are helpful to their case and should be produced, and which documents can be withheld as privileged. See Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers. Union v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 748 P.2d 283, 294 (Wyo. 1987) (observing that the at-issue waiver doctrine is designed to address the unfairness associated with allowing a party private person; (4) actual damages; and (5) statement must be defamatory. Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008). Because Plaintiffs are public figures or limited public figures, they must also prove that Dershowitz acted with actual malice in making his statements, i.e., that Defendant "knew [the Joinder Motion] to be an entirely proper and well- founded pleading." Exhibit A, Comp. ¶ 17. 6 EFTA00603613 to assert the relevancy of information through some affirmative act for his own benefit, while at the same time denying his opponent access to the very evidence that might refute or allow defense of this information). In sum, Plaintiffs' objections to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 21 and to Document Request Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 & 35 on the basis of attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine must be overruled and production should be compelled. 2. Plaintiffs' unfounded relevancy and admissibility objections must be overruled. Plaintiffs also objected to many of the Discovery Requests propounded by Dershowitz on the basis that the requests seek information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In particular, Plaintiffs asserted relevancy and/or admissibility objections in response to the Discovery Requests seeking information and documents concerning: (1) Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz asserted in the Federal Action; (2) Plaintiffs' investigation into Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz; (3) Plaintiffs' assertion in the Complaint that Dershowitz was an alleged participant in the criminal conduct committed by Epstein; and (4) Jane Doe No. 3's whereabouts and activities during the time when she claims to have been a "sex slave" for Epstein. See Exhibit A, Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13, 21; Exhibit C, Responses to Document Request Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35. Plaintiffs' objections in this regard are not well-taken. Under Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party[.]" Put 7 EFTA00603614 differently, information is discoverable so long as it relates "to the issues involved in the litigation, as framed in all pleadings." Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So. 3d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (internal citation omitted); see also Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (a protective order is required only "when the pleadings indicate that the documents requested are not related to any pending claim or defense."). As noted above, the Complaint in this defamation case expressly alleges that Plaintiffs filed a pleading on behalf of Jane Doe No. 3 in the Federal Action that contained factual allegations regarding Dershowitz, including that Dershowitz "had knowledge of and participation in Epstein's criminal conduct." Exhibit A, Compl. ¶ 16. The Complaint goes on to allege that Dershowitz committed the tort of defamation by accusing Plaintiffs "of having leveled knowingly false accusations against [Dershowitz] without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations" made by Jane Doe No. 3 — even though Dershowitz "knew [the filing containing Jane Doe No. 3's allegations] to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading." Id. 1 17. Thus, Plaintiffs have placed the credibility of Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz and their investigation of those allegations squarely at issue in this case. They cannot now seriously contend that documents and information relating to those issues are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Accordingly, Plaintiffs' relevancy and/or admissibility objections to Interrogatory Nos. 13 & 21 and Document Request Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, & 35 should be overruled and production compelled. 3. Plaintiffs' remaining boilerplate objections also must be overruled. Plaintiffs assert a number of form objections throughout their responses to Dershowitz's Discovery 8 EFTA00603615 Requests, claiming that the requests are vague, overbroad, overly burdensome, and/or harassing. See generally Exhibits B, C, & D. Such boilerplate objections are improper. In Florida, objections to interrogatories must specify the grounds for the objection; non- specific objections will not suffice. E.g., Christie v. Hixson, 358 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Likewise, objections to document requests must also state with specificity the particular provision of the request to which an objection is being asserted. E.g., Am. Funding, Ltd. v. Hill, 402 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) ("[T]he rule [governing requests for production] requires that a party respond to a request and that any objections be specifically stated."). Here, Plaintiffs' generalized objections on the grounds of vagueness, over-breadth, burden, and harassment are not specifically tailored to the individual interrogatories and document requests issued by Dershowitz. It is therefore impossible for Dershowitz to attempt to clarify the asserted vagueness or otherwise modify the requests to make them narrower and less burdensome. Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs' non-specific, boilerplate objections on the basis of vagueness, over-breadth, burden, and harassment should be overruled. 4. Plaintiffs cannot rely on vague, generalized references to purportedly public court documents and other documents allegedly in Dershowitz's possession. Throughout their responses to Dershowitz's discovery requests, Plaintiffs make generalized references to pleadings, deposition transcripts, and other documents that they contend are either available on public court dockets or within Dershowitz's possession, custody or control. By way of example: • Document Request No. 2 seeks "[a]it Documents Concerning Dershowitz's alleged `participation in Epstein's criminal conduct' referenced in paragraph 16 of the Complaint." After noting that they "have collected many pages of documents pointing to Dershowitz's involvement in Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls over a nearly seven year period of time," Plaintiffs indicate that they are — subject to objections — "produc[ing] the following attached materials." Exhibit D, Supplemental Response to Request No. 2. Plaintiffs further respond, however, as follows: "[s]ee also all pleadings, discovery responses and depositions in the 9 EFTA00603616  following civil proceedings in which Jeffrey Epstein was named as a party," followed by a list of 24 different case numbers. Id. Plaintiffs further note that "Dershowitz also possesses significant information that is responsive to this request — information that Edwards and Cassell have requested from Dershowitz in their requests for production." Id. • Document Request No. 22 seeks "[a]ll Documents Concerning any assertion that Dershowitz negotiated the [non-prosecution agreement ("NPA")] for his own benefit." In response, Plaintiffs state in relevant part that "Dershowitz possesses, or has access to, all information regarding his negotiation of the NPA." Exhibit D, Supplemental Response to Request No. 22. • Document Request No. 25 seeks "[a]ll Documents Concerning any investigation of Dershowitz." In response, Plaintiffs state in relevant part: "[s]ee also all depositions taken in all civil cases involving Jeffrey Epstein in which the allegations concerned his molestation of minors"; "[s]ee also the criminal Palm Beach State Attorney's Office regarding Jeffrey Epstein"; and "[s]ee also all books, articles and publications of or about Dershowitz which are in the possession of Dershowitz or in public circulation." Exhibit D, Supplemental Response to Request No. 25. See also Exhibit B, Interrogatory Responses, Nos. 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22; Exhibit D, Supplemental Responses, Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 21, 35. These responses are inadequate under Florida law for a number of reasons. First, Plaintiffs' vague, unspecific responses provide absolutely no notice to Dershowitz of which documents Plaintiffs assert support their allegations of defamation. Most notably, Plaintiffs have not identified or produced the specific documents that supposedly support the allegation in the Complaint that Dershowitz's statements about Plaintiffs "were false and known by him to be false at the time they were made." Exhibit A, Compl. 1 17. Second, Plaintiffs seem to suggest that any document relating to Epstein's criminal conduct necessarily reflects criminal conduct by Dershowitz. This makes it impossible for Dershowitz to determine either (1) the factual predicates for the allegations raised in the Federal Action about Dershowitz, as opposed to those allegations made about Epstein; or (2) the fact and 10 EFTA00603617 extent of Plaintiffs' investigation into the allegations raised in the Federal Action about Dershowitz, as opposed to their investigation more generally of Epstein. Third, by referring generally to the purportedly "public" nature of documents filed or exchanged in other court cases, Plaintiffs are improperly attempting to shift the burden associated with the collection of documents they have identified as responsive to the Discovery Requests. In some circumstances, it may be perfectly valid to assert that the burden of locating responsive documents rests equally on both parties. That is not the case here, however. Dershowitz understands that many of the civil cases against Epstein that Plaintiffs identified in response to Request No. 2 contain filings that are under seal. Deposition transcripts and discovery materials exchanged in those civil cases would not be available from the public docket in any event. The cases are also voluminous. Having participated in many of the cases identified in response to Request No. 2, Plaintiffs are well-aware of the limitations as to what is "publicly available" from those dockets. Plaintiffs are therefore implying in this regard that Dershowitz automatically has possession, custody, and/or control over any document relating to any case involving Epstein by virtue of Dershowitz's representation of Epstein in certain criminal actions. This is incorrect. Documents relating to or concerning the civil actions brought against Epstein are, by definition, Epstein's documents — not Dershowitz's. Dershowitz did not serve as Epstein's counsel of record in connection with any of the 24 civil cases identified by Plaintiffs. Nor does Dershowitz serve as Epstein's counsel of record for purposes of the Federal Action. Dershowitz likewise does not have every document relating to the negotiation of the NPA in his possession, custody, or control; Plaintiffs, by contrast, have collected those documents, to the extent not privileged, and II EFTA00603618 have them in their possession. Plaintiffs cannot treat Dershowitz as being interchangeable with Epstein, a non-party.3 Dershowitz is also entitled to know which specific document(s) in these cases are directly responsive to his specific document requests and interrogatories, as Plaintiffs cannot maintain that each case in its entirety — including non-substantive filings like notices of deposition, notices of hearing, etc., — is responsive. For these reasons, Plaintiffs should be compelled to (I) produce all documents and information that is responsive to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 22; and to Document Request Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 21, 22, 25, & 35; and (2) identify with specificity the particular documents that are responsive to the foregoing Interrogatories and Document Requests.° 5. Plaintiffs must be compelled to produce their retainer agreement with Jane Doe No. 3. In response to Request No. 30, which seeks "[a]ll Documents Concerning Your retainer agreement with Jane Doe #3," Plaintiffs objected on the basis that the request seeks "information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, attorney- client privilege, work-product doctrine, overly burdensome, overbroad, vague, harassing." Exhibit D, Supplemental Responses, Req. No. 30. Plaintiffs' objections are not well-taken. As an initial matter, the terms of Plaintiffs' engagement by Jane Doe No. 3 are directly relevant to the issues in dispute in this action. The timing of Jane Doe No. 3's retention of Plaintiffs is indisputably relevant to determining when Jane Doe No. 3 first raised allegations 3 Dershowitz maintains that there are no documents or information that support Plaintiffs' defamation claim because Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against him are completely false. 4 At Plaintiffs' insistence, Dershowitz identified by Bates number the specific documents responsive to Plaintiffs' four sets of document requests, which total nearly 50 separate documents requests. Despite agreeing to do the same, Plaintiffs reneged and failed to identify Bates numbers of their responsive documents in their Supplemental Responses. 12 EFTA00603619 against Dershowitz and Plaintiffs' corresponding investigation into those allegations - issues that are in dispute by virtue of Plaintiffs' filing of this litigation and the allegations raised in their Complaint against Dershowitz. See Exhibit A, Compl. fi 16-17. Likewise, the financial terms of Plaintiffs' engagement by Jane Doe No. 3 are relevant to issues of bias, including whether Plaintiffs had any financial incentives to sensationalize the allegations against Dershowitz. Dershowitz has a right to explore Plaintiffs' and Jane Doe No. 3's bias. See Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (discovery aimed at obtaining evidence of a witness's bias is permissible). Moreover, there is no basis for Plaintiffs' assertion that the retainer agreement or documents relating thereto are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. It is well-established that a retainer letter between a client and her attorney generally is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, nor is other information relating to the financial arrangements between the attorney and the client. See, e.g., Lawfinders Assocs., Inc. v. Legal Research Ctr., Inc., 193 F.3d 517, 518 (5th Cir. 1999) ("[T]he attorney-client privilege does not protect the type of information contained in the retainer letters."); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1043-44 (5th Cir. 1981) (explaining that "[f]inancial transactions between the attorney and client, including the compensation paid by or on behalf of the client" generally are not protected by the attorney-client privilege). Plaintiffs' remaining boilerplate objections to Request No. 30 lack any specificity or support and are also improper, as discussed above. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' objections to Document Request No. 30 should be overruled, and production should be compelled. 6. Plaintiffs must be compelled to produce any documents concerning any actual or potential book, media, or television "deal" that involves Jane Doe No. 3. In 13 EFTA00603620 response to Request No. 29, which seeks "[a]ll Documents Concerning any actual or potential book, television, movie or other media deals Concerning Jane Doe No. 3's allegations about being a sex slave," Plaintiffs objected on the basis that this request seeks "information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, overly burdensome, overbroad, vague, harassing." Exhibit D, Supplemental Responses, Req. No. 29. Once again, Plaintiffs' objections are improper and unfounded. The documents and information requested by Dershowitz in Request No. 29 are directly relevant to the issues in dispute in this defamation action. As noted above, Dershowitz has a right to explore any biases held by Plaintiffs and/or their client, Jane Doe No. 3. E.g., Steinger, 103 So. 3d at 203. Information about movie deals, book deals, or other financial arrangements that could give Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers a financial motive to invent sensational allegations like those she has made against Dershowitz are directly relevant to the issue of bias. Such information also is highly probative of Jane Doe No. 3's credibility and the adequacy of Plaintiffs' investigation into Jane Doe No. 3's allegations against Dershowitz. Plaintiffs' objections to Document Request No. 29 should therefore be overruled, and production should be compelled. 7. Plaintiffs must be compelled to produce responsive documents from the Federal Action that have been unsealed. Request No. 22 seeks "[a]ll Documents Concerning any assertion that Dershowitz negotiated the NPA for his own benefit." In their Supplemental Responses served on August 25, 2015, Plaintiffs stated that: [They] [] have received from the U.S. Attorney's Office from the Southern District of Florida approximately 1000 pages of correspondence between that Office and Jeffrey Epstein's legal defense team (including Dershowitz) exchanged from approximately 2006 to 2008 related to the non-prosecution 14 EFTA00603621  agreement. Those documents are currently under seal by order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in connection with the [Federal Action]. This seal has been requested by, and obtained by, Dershowitz's close friend, client and co-conspirator, Jeffrey Epstein, over the objection of Edwards and Cassell on behalf of their clients. Accordingly, Dershowitz should request that Epstein withdraw his request for sealing so that these materials can be produced to Dershowitz. Exhibit D, Supplemental Responses, Req. No. 22. Plaintiffs' response is incorrect in a number of respects. Dershowitz is not a "co- conspirator" of Epstein's. Moreover, on July 6, 2015, U.S. District Judge Marra issued a ruling in the Federal Action that unsealed many of the communications between Epstein's counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office relating to the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement. See Exhibit E. Plaintiffs therefore should be compelled to produce the responsive documents they identified in Req. No. 22, as their objection on the basis of sealing is no longer proper. 8. Lastly, Plaintiffs must be compelled to advise that production is complete. In their Supplemental Responses to the First Set of Document Requests, Plaintiffs continued to assert objections, in part, along with a substantive response. Plaintiffs have been producing those documents they have identified as responsive in a rolling manner. In so doing, Dershowitz is not in a position to know if and when production is complete, that all responsive documents have been produced, and/or whether any documents have been withheld. Plaintiffs must be compelled to state same. WHEREFORE, Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order (a) overruling Plaintiffs' objections to the Discovery Requests; (b) compelling Plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Dershowitz's First Sets of Document Requests in a timely manner; (c) compelling Plaintiffs to provide complete responses to Dershowitz's First Sets of 15 EFTA00603622 Interrogatories in a timely manner; and (d) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL Pursuant to the Court's Rules and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned counsel certifies that he has made a good faith attempt to resolve this matter with opposing counsel prior to filing this motion. 16 EFTA00603623  Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas E. Scott Thomas E. Scott, Esq. Florida Bar No. 149100 [email protected] Steven R. Safra, Esq. Florida Bar No. 057028 [email protected] COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II, 14th Floor 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Phone: (305) 350-5300 Fax: (305) 373-2294 Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice) [email protected] Mary E. Soda (pro hac vice) [email protected] Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice) [email protected] WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 719-7000 Fax: (202) 719-7049 Counselfor Alan M. Dershowitz 17 EFTA00603624  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail (email) at email address: jsx esearcylaw.com, mep searcylaw.com, [email protected] to: Jack Scarola, Esq, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, and I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Broward County by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal this 8th day of September, 2015 . By: s/Thomas E. Scott THOMAS E. SCOTT FBN: 149100 18 EFTA00603625 EXHIBIT A EFTA00603626 User ID: c021589, DatelTime: 1/13/2015 10:43 AM, Document Name: Dershowitz ComplaInt.pdf IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, by and through their undersigned attorneys, sue the Defendant, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, and allege: 1. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2. PAUL G. CASSELL is a resident of the Stale of Utah, is sui juris, is a former United States federal judge, who is a professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. He is and at all times material hereto has been a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Utah and has been and continues to be admitted to practice pro hac vice in the State of Florida. 3. Prior to assuming his teaching responsibilities, PAUL G. CASSELL clerked first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-1985) and then from 1985 to 1986 clerked for the United States Supreme Court before serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney EFTA00603627 Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz Complaint General with the U.S. Justice Department and as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 4. PAUL G. CASSELL was sworn in as a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Utah in July of 2002 and served in that position for over 5 years before turning his MI time attention to crime victims' rights and criminal justice reform. 5. PAUL G. CASSELL has at all material times enjoyed a highly favorable national reputation particularly related to his crime victims' rights work. 6. PAUL G. CASSELL has served as co-counsel with BRADLEY J. EDWARDS in representing the interests of multiple victims of billionaire, serial child abuser, Jeffrey Epstein, including in particular a pending action in Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) which challenges the legality of a secret deal that immunized Jeffrey Epstein and associates of Epstein from federal criminal prosecution despite evidence that Epstein had sexually assaulted over 40 female minors on hundreds of occasions with the active help and participation ofmultiple associates. 7. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS is a resident of T3roward County, Florida, is sui juris, and is and at all times material hereto has been an attorney duly licensed to practice law and regularly engaged in the practice of law throughout the State ofFlorida and beyond. 8. Despite having previously been the victim of character assassination by the Defendant, ALAN M. DERSHOW1TZ'S associate and client, Jeffrey Epstein, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS enjoys a highly favorable national reputation particularly related to his work in defending the rights of child victims of sexual abuse. 2 EFTA00603628 Edwards and Cassell v. Dcrshowitz Complaint 9. Before entering the private practice of law, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS was a trial attorney at the Broward County Slate Attorney's Office responsible for the prosecution of many major and violent crimes. Ile is a Florida Bar Board Certified Civil Trial Attorney who has tried dozens ofjury trials. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS has been profiled in The Best Lawyers in America and recognized by the National Trial Lawyers Association by inclusion in its "Top 40 Under 40" listing. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' professional peers have given him a Martindale-Hubbell rating of"AV" attesting to the highest level of professional excellence and unquestionable ethics. 10. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS has been actively involved for the better part of the last decade in representing multiple victims of the billionaire, serial child abuser, Jeffrey Epstein. 11. Defendant, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, upon information and belief is a resident of the Slate of Florida and is sui juris. 12. Defendant, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, is an attorney whose involvement in multiple high-profile legal matters has enabled hint to command easy access to mass media news sources. 13. Defendant, ALAN M. DERSIIOWITZ, was one of a very large team of lawyers involved in defending Jeffrey Epstein during his criminal investigation, and according to DERSHOWITZ'S own public statements, DERSIIOWITZ was responsible for negotiating Epstein's secret deal with the federal government which afforded protection not only to Epstein but to various of his associates as well. 3 EFTA00603629 Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowiiz Complaint 14. In fulfillment of their obligations to two Epstein-victim clients, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL filed and have been aggressively prosecuting a legal action in the Federal District Court as previously described in Paragraph 6. 15. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL on behalf of two additional Epstein-victim clients sought the agreement of the federal government to permit those clients to intervene in the already pending CVRA action. The government declined to agree to the intervention, thus requiring EDWARDS and CASSELL to file legal pleadings seeking a Court Order Nrmiuing intervention on the basis of specifically alleged factual allegations. 16. Among the factual allegations made by EDWARDS and CASSELL were allegations that Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, had knowledge of and participation in Epstein's criminal conduct. 17. Immediately following the filing of what the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, knew to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading, DERSHOWITZ initiated a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, DERSHOWITZ, without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment. 18. The details of Defendant, DERSHOWITZ'S character assassination of BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL are typified by the contents of the CNN interview available to be accessed on the internet at: 4 EFTA00603630 Edwards aid Cassell v. Dashowitz Complaint http://www.ctin.comknic/m/ockurope/prince-andrew-sex-abuse-allegations/index.himle That interview is incorporated herein by reference. 19. The same or substantially identical accusations of deliberate misconduct and unethical behavior warranting disbannent of the Plaintiffs were repeated by the Defendant, DERSI1OWITZ, in multiple nationally televised interviews, in statements to and repeated by national and international print news sources, and various other forms nationally and internationally. 20. The Defendant, DERSHOWITZ'S statements were false and known by him to be false at the time they were made. DERSHOWITZ was speaking from his Miami residence at the time he made the false and defamatory statements. 21. Alternatively, DERSHOWITZ made the statements in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity, intending that the statements would provide support for DERSHOWITZ'S false protestations of his own innocence and direct attention away from DERSHOWITZ'S personal knowledge of and involvement in Epstein's criminal conduct and the subsequent cover up of that misconduct. 22, DERSHOWITZ'S statements were and are defamatory per se directly attacking the fitness of the Plaintiffs to engage in the honored profession of the practice of law. 23. DERSHOWITZ acted in willful, wanton, reckless, and intentional disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs and under such circumstances as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 5 EFTA00603631 Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz Complain) 24. As the statements made by DERSHOWITZ are defamatory per se, injury to the Plaintiffs is presumed us u matter of law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, for compensatory damages, costs, pre and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiffs reserve the III to assert claims for punitive damages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. Plaintiffs further demand trial by jury. Data) this _4 rg day of January, 2015. JACK' AROLA Florid ar No.: 169440 art, cy E-Mail(s): [email protected] and ipOsearcylaw.com t rimary E-Mail: _searolateam©searcytaw.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 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 EFTA00603632 EXHIBIT B EFTA00603633  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiff(s), vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant(s). NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Plaintiffs, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories with the Court propounded by the Defendant, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, on February 11, 2015, and that a copy has been furnished to the attorney for the Defendant. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this day of LCIA" , 2015. OLA74 Florida Bar No.: 169 0 7e 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