EFTA01203823.pdf

PROCEEDINGS April10,2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, CASE No.: vs. CACE 15-000072 ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS M. LYNCH, IV Friday, April 10, 2015 9:05 - 9:55 o'clock a.m. Broward County Courthouse 201 Southeast 6th Street Room 950 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 JERROLD Wm. SEGAL, Court Reporter °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203823  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 2 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. SEARCY, DENNY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 561-686-6300 On behalf of the Defendant: THOMAS E. SCOTT, ESQ. STEVEN R. SAFRA, ESQ. (via speakerphone) of the Law Offices of COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II 10 Suite 1400 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard 11 Miami, Florida 33156 305.350.5320 12 305 373 2294 Fax 13 14 Co-counsel: Defense 15 MARY E. BORJA, ESQ. of the Law Offices of 16 WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K STREET NW 17 Washington, DC 20006 202.71 .42 2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ESQUIRESOL uT IONS 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn EFTA01203824  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 3 1 Proceedings in the Matter of Bradley J. Edwards and 2 Paul G. Cassell, Plaintiffs, vs, Alan M. Dershowitz, 3 Defendant. 4 Friday, April 10, 2015 5 THE BAILIFF: Please, remain seated. Everyone, 6 please come to order. Court is now in session, the 7 Honorable Thomas M. Lynch, IV now presiding. 8 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Your Honor. 10 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: We are here on case number CACE 12 15-000072, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, 13 Plaintiffs, versus Alan M. Dershowitz, Defendant. 14 MR. SCAROLA: That's correct, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Now, I see that someone is on the 16 telephone? 17 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor, that's one of my 18 folks. 19 THE COURT: That's okay. I just wasn't sure 20 who, but I knew someone was appearing by phone 21 today. 22 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor 23 THE COURT: And my friend, Diego, here will be 24 taking this chair. This is "Bring Your Kid to Work 25 Week," but since my kid is probably trying a case 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203825  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 4 1 right now, I decide that he's probably working 2 anyway. Now, let me see 3 MR. SCOTT: Your Honor, from my firm, Steve 4 Safra is appearing by telephone from Cole, Scott, 5 Kissane. 6 THE COURT: I'm going to put him on the line in 7 a moment. 8 MR. SCOTT: Thanks, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. Can you hear me? 10 Hello? Can you hear me? 11 MR. SAFRA: Good morning, Your Honor, yes, 12 thank you. 13 THE COURT: For the record, counsel, if you 14 could please tell us your name? 15 MR. SAFRA: Steven Safra and I work with Tom 16 Scott and I'm available if he needs assistance, but 17 I'm not lead today. 18 THE COURT: Okay, that's very good. Thank you. 19 Mr. Safra, you may have some difficulty in hearing 20 those individuals that are not real close to the 21 telephone today because our equipment doesn't work 22 very well. 23 MR. SAFRA: Okay, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Just let us know if it's a problem 25 and if it is a problem and if it's necessary for the °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203826  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 5 1 gentleman to hear everything, then we'll have to ask 2 you to come a little closer to the telephone. 3 MR. SAFRA: I appreciate that, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Sure, sure. 5 Now, we have two motions to hear this morning 6 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, as well as the 7 Defendant's Motion, as it relates to depositions. 8 MR. SCOTT: That's correct. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Judge. 10 THE COURT: So which one do you gentlemen want 11 to do first? 12 MR. SCOTT: I think, the depositions, Your 13 Honor. 14 MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. It was the first 15 filed of the motions, Your Honor, so I don't have 16 any problem dealing with it in that order. 17 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine, thank you. 18 MR. SCOTT: Judge, do you prefer that we each 19 address you from here or should be use the podium up 20 there? 21 THE COURT: Oh, just make yourself comfortable. 22 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Your Honor, as you know, we 23 gave the Court a book on all of the pleadings and 24 things. Has the court had an opportunity yet to 25 look at that? OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203827  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 6 1 THE COURT: I have reviewed the motions. I've 2 actually reviewed everything that's been filed, but 3 I haven't reviewed the book yet. 4 MR. SCOTT: Okay Well Your Honor, the first 5 motion is really 6 THE COURT: Plus, I'm going to reserve ruling 7 or at least I'll likely reserve. 8 MR. SCOTT: On the both motions? 9 THE COURT: Probably. 10 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Judge, the first motion 11 that's up for hearing is actually our Motion to 12 Compel the deposition of Mr. Paul Cassell and a 13 third-party witness, the Jane Doe witness, prior to 14 the deposition of my client, Mr. Alan Dershowitz. 15 And the factual background around it, is that 16 this case was filed on June 6. Then on June 7 -- 17 oh, I mean on January 6 -- and on January 7 Mr. 18 Scarola sent me an e-mail and asked if I'd accept 19 service. I did it one day later, on January 7. 20 Then on the 9 of January, Your Honor, he sent 21 me a Notice of Taking Deposition of my client, Mr. 22 Alan Dershowitz. On that same day we sent Notices 23 of Taking Deposition of his client, Mr. Cassell and 24 also of the Jane Doe third-party witness. 25 Your Honor, I might point out to you that the 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203828  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 7 1 Court has appointed a commissioner and she has been 2 served with a deposition -- with a subpoena and a 3 lawyer representing her has filed a Notice of 4 Quashing that, which is going to have to be heard by 5 the Court. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Now, I didn't read that. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, that actually just happened, 8 Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Because I recall signing -- I don't 10 know if it was electronically or otherwise, but I do 11 recall signing an order -- Colorado, I think. 12 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Colorado, it is. 13 MR. SCOTT: Colorado it is. So Judge, the issue 14 is the following: Mr. Scarola says that, "I, by 15 just a matter of an hour or two, and within the 16 three days, noticed your client first and so your 17 client should go first." 18 Our position is twofold, Your Honor. Number 19 one, that the rule does not contemplate that, Rule 20 1.310, and the reading of that rule -- and I'm going 21 to paraphrase it, Your Honor. It's actually in 22 front of you. I'm not going to read it all, but the 23 way that I paraphrase it, that rule 1.310 provides 24 that a Plaintiff may only notice a Defendant for 25 deposition within thirty days after service of °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203829  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 8 1 process, if the Defendant has otherwise initiated 2 discovery, which we had not done yet, or is about to 3 go out of the state and thus be unavailable for 4 deposition, which is not in this case, applicable, 5 as he is a resident of Miami Beach. 6 So Your Honor, Mr. Scarola and I actually have 7 a different interpretation of the rule. I will tell 8 you, Judge, that I have researched it and I spoke to 9 Jack and Jack has researched it and we cannot find a 10 direct case actually interpreting that particular 11 rule. 12 THE COURT: There isn't -- well, I haven't 13 found it either. 14 MR. SCAROLA: So now that's three of us. 15 MR. SCOTT: Well, it comes down to a question 16 of how you interpret it, Judge? I think it says 17 that a Plaintiff may only notice -- and that means a 18 Notice of Deposition for depositions within thirty 19 days after service of process. 20 And the way that we interpret that rule, Judge, 21 is that he has to wait thirty days after we respond 22 in order to file it. I think that Mr. Scarola's 23 interpretation is, "No, I don't need to do it, so 24 long as the deposition is held within thirty days." 25 That in a nutshell, that is what the dispute is °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203830  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 9 1 here, Your Honor. Your Honor, we think that the 2 intent clearly was to provide at least thirty days 3 for the Defendant, before he can be noticed for a 4 deposition, to have an opportunity to prepare, to be 5 not placed in a situation where if he were to answer 6 today, you know, and/or the Plaintiff could notice 7 him, for example, with a Complaint and then 8 literally within ten days after responding to the 9 Complaint or so, to have his deposition taken. 10 I think it's a breathing space -- unless the 11 Defendant, himself or herself, initiates that. And 12 I think it just makes sense that that's the correct 13 interpretation of the rule. Otherwise the Plaintiff 14 would always practically have the first opportunity 15 to take the deposition and the whole thing would be 16 moot. 17 But Judge it's your interpretation and you're 18 going to do it the way you think it's done. 19 THE COURT: I was hoping one of you would come 20 up with a case, but I couldn't find one. 21 MR. SCOTT: No, no, Your Honor, and I really 22 tried and Mr. Scarola tried too. We have a second 23 position too, Judge, which is this. We think that 24 no matter how the rule is interpreted, that you have 25 the inherent discretion under Rule 1.280(c) to let OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203831  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 10 1 the Defendant -- I mean to let the Plaintiff go 2 first and the Defense go secondly. 3 Here, you know, the Defendant did not initiate 4 discovery and here we think that where the Plaintiff 5 has made the accusation of the defamation, where the 6 Plaintiffs' client, Jane Doe, the third, is also the 7 accuser, that the Defendant is really entitled to 8 know before he has to give a deposition -- the 9 Defendant is entitled to know when it is that these 10 purportedly acts of misconduct occurred, to feel out 11 what their position is, especially when they took 12 such prompt action, within three days, and to have 13 those depositions taken before he, the Defendant, is 14 placed in that position of having to respond. 15 I think this is necessary in order to narrow 16 the issues and in order to narrow the scope of the 17 deposition and things of that nature. I would also 18 say to you, Judge, in this case in particular, the 19 Defendant is a public figure and he has been fifty 20 years in the community as a leading lawyer and he 21 should not be subject to deposition of this nature 22 without at least having had the opportunity to hear 23 what the accusers have to say. 24 So Judge, it's almost like actually flipping 25 the burden of proof, so we think that this situation OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203832  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 11 1 is one where, you know, from an equitable standpoint 2 that it should be the Plaintiff first, and then the 3 Defendant second. 4 Judge, I found one case which I provided to Mr. 5 Scarola earlier. Just yesterday, I actually went 6 down to the law library and it's been a long time 7 since I did that one -- and I found a case -- a case 8 called Klein vs. Lancer. It's a 2nd District case, 9 Your Honor. May I approach? 10 THE COURT: Sure, of course. Thank you, very 11 much. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor. 13 (Handing) 14 This is a case in which a -- it was actually a 15 slander suit, just like this one. It's not a long 16 opinion, but basically, in this case the judge ruled 17 that the Plaintiff's deposition had to go before the 18 Defense's deposition and the Plaintiff took a cert 19 petition to the Court on it -- and from a slander 20 accusation. And the court said, "The trial judge 21 did not abuse the discretion granted to him by a 22 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)2 when he 23 limited Petitioner's ability to proceed in deposing 24 Respondent. Because that is so, there was no 25 departure from the requirements of law." OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203833  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 12 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. SCOTT: So here's a case where, clearly, 3 this trial judge in this case, back in 1983 in the 4 2nd District agreed with this -- made the Plaintiff 5 go first and the Defendant afterwards. I provide 6 that just to show the Court that that's the closest 7 case that I could get on this type of an issue, Your 8 Honor. 9 THE COURT: Well, I've actually had the very 10 same issue before. 11 MR. SCOTT: So Judge, I would also say one 12 thing, and I don't know if you have yet had an 13 opportunity, but when this case was first started 14 MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm very sorry to 15 interrupt, Your Honor, but I'm really a little bit 16 concerned that we have a half hour set aside for two 17 motions today and a significant portion of that time 18 has already been used by Mr. Scott. 19 MR. SCOTT: I guess, please, give me three more 20 minutes, Judge? 21 THE COURT: Sure Go ahead. 22 MR. SCOTT: I apologize. When this Complaint 23 was filed, in paragraph 17 -- and I think that this 24 is very important for the Court -- paragraph 17 of 25 the Complaint says, "Immediately following the OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203834  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 13 1 filing of what Dershowitz knew to be an entirely 2 proper and well founded pleading, Dershowitz 3 initiated a massive public media assault on Mr. 4 Edwards and Mr. Cassell." 5 I bring this to your attention because, Judge, 6 the truth is that they initiated that accusation in 7 the case before Judge Marra and in that particular 8 litigation, they filed a Motion to Intervene. 9 THE COURT: Right. 10 MR. SCOTT: And in the course of that Motion to 11 Intervene they blasted not only Mr. Dershowitz, my 12 client, mostly, but they also blasted Prince Andrew; 13 they blasted the President of the United States, all 14 of which was totally unnecessary to that litigation. 15 And it was that fact -- that fact that led to 16 my client responding publicly, because he had been a 17 public figure for fifty years, in order to defend 18 himself. This week -- this week Judge Marra entered 19 an order in which -- and I'm going to quote from it 20 because I think it has a lot of relevance -- and I 21 have a copy for the Court. 22 THE COURT: I've read the news report, but not 23 the order. 24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, and I have a blowup of certain 25 portions of it, which I think it's highly relevant 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203835  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 14 1 to this case. 2 (Handing.) 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry, but are there copies 5 available? 6 MR. SCOTT: I sure do, buddy. I wasn't going 7 to forget you. 8 MR. SCAROLA: I wouldn't let you. 9 MR. SCOTT: You and I have had too many battles 10 in the past. 11 (Handing) 12 MR. SCAROLA: Thanks. 13 MR. SCOTT: Judge, in that order I highlighted 14 three portions and I'm only going to read now from 15 two. What the judge did was to, basically, strike 16 every accusation and sealed it, involving my client 17 and all of the things, saying that it was completely 18 unnecessary. It was not required and, in effect, he 19 was saying -- and denying the Plaintiffs that -- Mr. 20 Cassell's Motion to Intervene. I think that Mr. 21 Scarola was actually a part of that case? 22 And Your Honor, it's really important to see 23 that what Judge Marra, who by the way is a very 24 conservative excellent judge, who has had this case 25 for eight years now, and has ruled constantly for OESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203836  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 15 1 the victims in this case on major motions -- "at 2 this juncture in the proceedings these lurid details 3 are unnecessary to the determination of whether Jane 4 Doe and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join the 5 Plaintiffs' claim that the government violated the 6 rights under the Crime Victim Protections Act. The 7 factual details regarding with whom and where Jane 8 Doe engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and 9 impertinent to the central claim, that is, that they 10 were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the government 11 owed to the CVRA duties, especially considering that 12 these details involved non-parties who are not 13 related to the government's actions. These 14 unnecessary details shall be stricken." 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. SCOTT: And the third one -- the second 17 page is just the ruling. On the third one I gave 18 you it says, "Regarding the declarations in support" 19 -- no, that's not the one I want. 20 (Perusing document.) 21 Okay. Here it is now. The second one, Judge, 22 is where it says, "As mentioned Mr. Dershowitz had 23 moved to intervene in that case to clear his name 24 after these accusations were made." Judge Marra 25 said, "As mentioned, Mr. Dershowitz moves to 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203837  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 16 1 intervene for the limited purposes of moving to 2 strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations 3 made against him and requesting a show cause order 4 to take to the attorneys that have made them. 5 "As the court has taken it upon itself to 6 strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 7 21 motion and the related filings, the Court 8 concludes that Mr. Dershowitz's intervention in this 9 case is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Motion to 10 Intervene will be denied. Regarding whether a show 11 cause order should issue against the attorneys" -- 12 which Mr. Dershowitz had requested -- "the Court 13 finds that its actions of striking these lurid 14 details from Petitioner's submissions is sanctions 15 enough -- sanctions -- sanctions against the 16 lawyers. 17 "However, the Court cautions that all counsel 18 are subject to Rule 11's mandate that all 19 submissions be presented for a proper purpose and a 20 factual contention have evidentiary support and that 21 the Court may, on its own, strike from the pleadings 22 any redundant, impertinent or any scandalous 23 proceedings." 24 THE COURT: I do have one question? 25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor? 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203838  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 17 1 THE COURT: I really don't know what, if 2 anything, that would have to do with this cause of 3 action? It's quite a unique cause of action in a 4 Federal suit, as I understand it? And the striking 5 of those accusations, which is understandable to me, 6 notwithstanding the fact that I'm not really very 7 familiar with that cause of action -- I'm not sure 8 what, if anything, that would have to do with this? 9 MR. SCOTT: Well, I think, Judge, that what I'm 10 trying to say to you is that it was really those 11 accusations that led to this whole lawsuit, because 12 he -- when they did that, Mr. Dershowitz, being a 13 public figure had a complete weekend nightmare of a 14 deplete publicity nightmare, with people calling him 15 and things like that. And he responded by defending 16 himself and trying to do it. 17 And so now if these things hadn't been put in 18 there by the same lawyers who are now suing my 19 client, we wouldn't even be here today. And I think 20 that that just goes to show you -- and I bring that 21 to your attention, Judge -- that the equity argument 22 that I did, that at least given this type of ruling 23 by such a conservative judge -- and you know, I've 24 never actually seen a judge strike things sui sponte 25 like that and just dismiss a pleading like that. It 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203839  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 18 1 just shows you that it's the right thing to do in 2 this case, to have Mr. Cassell and to have the 3 accuser, his client, Jane Doe 3, be deposed before 4 my client, Mr. Dershowitz, is deposed. Thank you, 5 Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Thank you, very much, counsel. 7 MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, let me begin first by 8 acknowledging that the Court has discretion to order 9 discovery. 10 MR. SCAROLA: There is no question about the 11 fact that whatever ruling Your Honor were to decide 12 was appropriate with regard to the ordering of the 13 discovery is not going to be disturbed except under 14 extraordinary circumstances, by any appellate court 15 and I would assure Your Honor, that that's not a 16 matter that we would consider subject to an appeal. 17 There are very good reasons why the order of 18 discovery here should be the order in which the 19 discovery has been noticed. Although Mr. Scott has 20 repeatedly paraphrased Rule 1.1.310 as prohibiting 21 the noticing of a deposition within thirty days of 22 the service of a Complaint, that's simply not what 23 the rule says. I will quote directly. "Leave of 24 Court granted with or without notice, must be 25 obtained only if the Plaintiff seeks to take a OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203840  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 19 1 deposition within thirty days after service of the 2 process." 3 So Your Honora, a deposition cannot be taken 4 within thirty days. A deposition may be noticed 5 prior to thirty days, but it may not be taken under 6 the terms of the rules, within thirty days, Your 7 Honor. Service was obtained by consent on January 8 7. The earliest, under the rule, that we would have 9 been able to take Professor Dershowitz's deposition 10 would have been February 6. 11 We sent a Notice of Deposition to depose Mr. 12 Dershowitz well outside the thirty day period of 13 time, on February 25, and accompanying that notice 14 was a letter. And that letter is, in fact, attached 15 to the pleadings that Your Honor has already seen. 16 And what that letter said was, "If this date is 17 not convenient, we are willing to move it to a more 18 convenient time. We move it up or we'll move it 19 back." And in light of Mr. Dershowitz's repeated 20 public proclamations that he's extremely anxious to 21 be able to be deposed to be able to vindicate 22 himself, we will do it as early as you want to do 23 it." 24 Now, during this period of time Mr. Dershowitz 25 was taking every opportunity that he possibly could OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203841  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 20 1 to appear before every audience that would have him, 2 Your Honor, to defame Mr. Bradley Edwards and Mr. 3 Paul Cassell. And I want to be sure than Your Honor 4 is really focused on what this defamation case is 5 really all about. 6 This defamation case is about two lawyers who 7 are working, pro bono, to vindicate the rights of 8 more than forty women who were sexually abused and 9 trafficked by Mr, Jeffrey Epstein over an extended 10 period of time. And Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, through 11 the work of Alan Dershowitz, had obtained an 12 extraordinary agreement from the federal government. 13 That extraordinary agreement said, that, "If you 14 plead guilty to one state court claim and serve, 15 basically, one year on house arrest, we will grant 16 you immunity from any federal prosecution and we 17 will grant all of your co-conspirators immunity from 18 any federal prosecution, as well." 19 Your Honor, that deal, if entered into, without 20 the consultation nor with an opportunity to be heard 21 by any of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, in spite 22 of federal law provisions that expressly state that 23 those victims must be consulted and they must have 24 an opportunity to inform the Court as to their own 25 position with regard to a plea bargain. °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203842  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 21 1 The position that the federal government took 2 was there was no indictment the and Crime Victims 3 Rights Act is actually only triggered by the filing 4 of an indictment. Judge Marra has absolutely 5 rejected that position and the 11th Circuit Court 6 has also rejected that position. And there is a lot 7 of active discovery in that case. 8 Now, Jane Doe number 3, she moves to intervene 9 through Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, her two 10 pro bono lawyers. This action has nothing to do 11 with monetary damages. It is simply an action about 12 a right to be heard, to set aside an extraordinary 13 plea deal, and to have an opportunity to be heard 14 before those claims are disposed of. 15 THE COURT: I was a little confused with the 16 facts in the state case? If I recall, there was a 17 plea to one count and an eighteen months sentence or 18 something like that. 19 MR. SCOTT: Yes. 20 MR. SCAROLA: I think eighteen months is right, 21 Your Honor. He actually served -- 22 THE COURT: Well, he served about eighty-five 23 percent? 24 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 25 MR. SCOTT: It was a state court pleading. 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203843  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 22 1 They had cases in both the federal and the state. 2 They took it to the state and they pled guilty there 3 and he got an eighteen months sentence. 4 MR. SCAROLA: And it was served mostly on house 5 arrest. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. SCAROLA: So in light of the scope of the 8 activities that were engaged in, on the number of 9 victims, and extraordinary plea deal, so Jane Doe 10 number 3 moves to intervene. Allegations are made 11 in a sworn Affidavit to support the intervention and 12 basically what Judge Marra has said is that, "The 13 original pleading that was filed in this case 14 addresses the concerns of all of the victims of 15 Jeffrey Epstein. We don't need to have Jane Doe 16 number 3 and Jane Doe number 4 moved into this case 17 because their rights are already being protected 18 under the terms of the pleading that currently now 19 exists." 20 And then he also says, here in a section that's 21 included in one of these quotes that's been provided 22 to Your Honor, "Jane Doe number 3 is now free to 23 reassert these factual details through the proper 24 evidentiary proof should Petitioners demonstrate a 25 good faith basis for believing that such details are °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203844  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 23 1 pertinent to a matter presented for the Court's 2 consideration." 3 One of the matters being presented for the 4 Court's consideration is the extent to which Alan 5 Dershowitz was a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein 6 and negotiated an unusual plea deal that immunized 7 all co-conspirators. So it remains to be seen, the 8 extent to which those representations do or do not 9 become relevant in the federal action, but that 10 really has nothing to do with the case before this 11 Court. 12 Because whether Jane Doe number 3 ultimately is 13 proven, if she ever is, because this may well be a 14 "he said - she said" type circumstance, where Alan 15 Dershowitz says, "I never ever had sex with this 16 young woman" and she says, "Oh, yes, you did" and 17 it's never actually proved conclusively one way or 18 another -- but that's really not the heart of this 19 defamation case. 20 THE COURT: Right. 21 MR. SCAROLA: What Alan Dershowitz was saying 22 repeatedly in front of every audience that he could 23 gather and because of the profile that he enjoys, 24 that meant every national morning news show, every 25 midday national news show, every afternoon national OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203845  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 24 1 news show, every evening national news show, every 2 late night national news show -- just about every 3 single talk show he could get on, he said over and 4 over again, repeatedly, "These lawyers knew at the 5 time that this Affidavit was filed, that it was 6 false. They fabricated it together with Jane Doe 7 number 3. They did it to just enhance their own 8 reputations and they did it for selfish, economic 9 reasons. They all lied. They knew that they were 10 lying at the time and they engaged in conduct that 11 requires their disbarment." 12 So the issue is not whether Jane Doe number 3 13 lied. The issue is whether Paul Cassell and Bradley 14 Edwards were liars? Whether they knew at the time 15 of filing of the this pleading that it was actually 16 false? That's the focus of this issue in this case. 17 So when the Court is making a determination, 18 Your Honor, as to who ought to be deposed first, 19 when Mr. Dershowitz is repeatedly making these 20 assertions, when his counsel is placed on notice, 21 "Please, stop your client, so that this litigation 22 can be conducted in a reasonable fashion" and Mr. 23 Dershowitz continues to defame Mr. Cassell and Mr. 24 Edwards on every occasion that he possibly can, I 25 think it's very reasonable for us to say, "If you C ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203846  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 25 1 say these folks are liars and if you say that you 2 have already gathered the proof that they are liars, 3 then we ought to find out what export he has for 4 that. But let me move on from there, if I could? 5 THE COURT: Sure, but we do have another motion 6 and the good news is one of my hearings was canceled 7 so actually do we have a little bit more time, but 8 not a lot. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll be 10 brief about this. 11 THE COURT: That's fine. 12 MR. SCAROLA: One of the conditions -- one of 13 the predicates that they want the Court to adopt 14 before Mr. Dershowitz is deposed -- they don't want 15 Mr. Dershowitz to be deposed before Jane Doe number 16 3 is deposed. However, Jane Doe number 3 is living 17 in Colorado. Jane Doe number 3 has been served with 18 a subpoena and there has already been a Motion for a 19 Protective Order that's been filed with regard to 20 that deposition including or particularly addressing 21 the scope of the duces tecum that's attached to that 22 Notice of Deposition. 23 She is actually represented by separate private 24 counsel. Separate counsel has offered to have those 25 issues resolved by this Court, but that offer has OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203847  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 26 1 not been accepted by opposing counsel yet. We don't 2 even know when or how those issues are going to be 3 resolved. Ordinarily, absent a stipulation, they 4 would have to be resolved in Colorado. Again, we 5 really don't even know how long it's going to take 6 to resolve those issues and the last thing we want 7 to do is to have Mr. Dershowitz's deposition being 8 contingent upon an undeterminable delay relating to 9 Jane Doe number 3. 10 I will tell you, quite frankly, whether Paul 11 Cassell is deposed before or after Alan Dershowitz 12 is of less significance to me, except that he is 13 also out-of-state and that will also require some 14 coordination. And I want to get Alan Dershowitz's 15 deposition taken as quickly as possible, because I 16 am hoping that the taking of his deposition will 17 slow down the juggernaut of defamation, the ongoing 18 assault that continues on almost a daily basis, 19 until such time as he is placed under oath and is 20 actually confronted with regard to the accusations 21 that he has made. 22 So for those reasons, Your Honor, because I 23 believe that the rule clearly allows us to take a 24 deposition, noticed before thirty days, but after 25 thirty days, because our notice went first, because OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203848  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 27 1 the focus of this case is really on Mr. Dershowitz's 2 having made statements that cannot be supported 3 about the Plaintiffs having been knowing and been 4 intentional liars and co-conspirators, we would ask, 5 respectfully, that we get to depose Mr. Dershowitz 6 as soon as possible. I'm sorry I've taken so long, 7 Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: That's okay. Mr. Scott? 9 MR. SCOTT: One minute. Judge, in the federal 10 court action -- I think that it's been pending for 11 eight years -- eight years later these -- through 12 Mr. Cassell's law firm, they filed this Motion to 13 Intervene. And to repeat, it contains accusations 14 that are totally irrelevant against my client -- 15 totally irrelevant, not needed for any reason, other 16 than to just make my client look bad and to gather 17 publicity by filing that. 18 THE COURT: Well, that's what the federal 19 judge, essentially, ruled. 20 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely, that's what he ruled. 21 All I'm saying is that, put into that position, a 22 public figure like Mr. Dershowitz, and faced on a 23 weekend with phone calls coming out of nowhere -- he 24 didn't even know that the darn thing had been filed. 25 And he responded the only way he did, by denying it 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203849  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 28 1 because he had to, as a public figure placed into 2 that position. That's why it was so important to do 3 it and to continue to do so when these issues come 4 up. I mean, he's defending his name of fifty years. 5 Thank you, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Well, like I said earlier, I'm 7 going to reserve and I'll let you know, probably, 8 Monday or Tuesday, but we do have a motion and some 9 argument on that? 10 MR. SCAROLA: Yes, thank you, very much, Your 11 Honor. This is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel their 12 Production of Documents. 13 THE COURT: Go ahead. 14 MR. SCAROLA: As the motion itself reflects, we 15 served a Notice to Produce on the Defense and after 16 more than forty-five days have elapsed, Your Honor, 17 we still had not received any discovery. There was 18 an exchange of communications with opposing counsel. 19 The Response that we got to the Request to Produce 20 has some very basic flaws to it. First of all, it 21 raises some general objections and it says that all 22 their Responses are made subject to those general 23 objections. 24 The result of that is we don't know whether we 25 are getting everything or if we are not getting OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203850  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 29 1 everything, because the objections are not at all 2 specifically stated with regard to our individual 3 requests. 4 It also says that whatever production that is 5 going to be made, is going to be made subject to 6 privilege. However, there is no privilege log. We 7 don't know whether we are getting everything or 8 whether some documents are being withheld on the 9 basis of privilege? 10 It also says that production will be made, but 11 with no indication as to actually when production 12 will be made. I called these defects to opposing 13 counsel's attention weeks ago, and I said that an 14 indefinite Response that, "Production will be made 15 sometime in the future," when the rules require 16 production to be made within thirty days after the 17 request is made, is absolutely inadequate. I said, 18 "Can you tell me when you have the documents ready 19 and I'll come and get them? I didn't get a Response 20 to that request. 21 Ninety days elapsed after the filing of the 22 Request to Produce and just last night, on the eve 23 of this hearing, we got a whole bunch of documents 24 that I have not had a chance to review in their 25 entirety. They are not, as far as I can tell, °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203851  PROCEEDINGS April 10, 2015 EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ 30 1 divided on a request by request basis, and they 2 consist almost entirely of pleadings filed in the 3 Crime Victims Rights Act case, newspaper articles 4 and yet the substantive requests that were made 5 still have not been responded to. I'm told by Mr. 6 Scott that his client is still in the process of 7 gathering the documents. 8 Your Honor, I am entitled to production within 9 thirty days. I certainly should have had production 10 within forty-five days and I certainly should have 11 had the production now within ninety days and yet I 12 still don't have even a representation, as to when 13 the full production will be made of the substantive 14 matters that have been requested, Judge. 15 These requests are very specific and they are 16 tied into the statements that Mr. Alan Dershowitz, 17 himself, has publicly made. Those statements are 18 identified in the Request to Produce. He talks 19 about specific documents which he claims that he was 20 able to gather within one hour of these accusations 21 having been made against him, which he says actually 22 "conclusively prove" his innocence. 23 Now