EFTA01116693.pdf

Filing # 34801581 E-Filed 11/23/2015 05:53:31 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, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT EDWARDS AND CASSELL'S RESPONSE TO DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The records at issue are not confidential, and so the Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety. The court records at issue are three court filings by attorneys Edwards and Cassell in which they recite their client's (Mr. allegations that she was sexually abused by Dershowitz. These records are hardly "confidential" in this defamation case, where the parties have claims and counterclaims about these sexual abuse Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. ut also indisputably establish al Edwards and Cassell's strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover, contrary to assertions made in Dershowitz's motion, these documents have never been found to be "confidential" by any other court. And Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to EFTA01116693 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 2 of 20 these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his media interviews that he wants "everything to be made public" and implied that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents. I. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS DEFAMATION CASE. In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing of "confidential" materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that "[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as provided below." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida Supreme Court's admonition that a "a strong presumption of openness exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public examination." Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, "[t]he burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure." Id. To obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a "heavy burden." Id. Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this general principle of access — and which specific exception he believes applies to this EFTA01116694 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and CasselIs Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 3 of 20 case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his motion. The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained as confidential in order to: (1) Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice; (ii) Protect trade secrets; (iii) Protect a compelling governmental interest; (iv) Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case; (v) Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; (vi) Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; (vii) Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law . Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate only where disclosure is "not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed" (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is "inherent" in the case itself. The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of EFTA01116695 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE I5-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 4 of 20 the materials in the records would be harmful to his professional reputation. Carnegie recited subsection vi's restriction on release of materials involving a privacy right, but noted that "statements Tedder alleged were defamatory and damaging were allegations in Camegie's counterclaim for which she seeks damages. These matters were not peripheral to the lawsuit; they were inherent to it." Id. at 1312. Of course, exactly the same principle applies here: sexual abuse allegations filed by attorneys Edwards and Cassell for their client M e not peripheral to this lawsuit — they are inherent to it. To see how "inherent" the sexual abuse allegations are to this lawsuit, the Court need look no further than Dershowitz's counterclaim in this case. Count I of Dershowitz's Counterclaim (styled as "False Allegations in the Joinder Motion") contends that Edwards and Cassell should pay him damages because they "filed a pleading in the Federal Action titled `Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action' . . . ." Dershowitz Counterclaim at ¶ 14. Dershowitz's Counterclaim then goes on to quote at length from the Joinder Motion. His counterclaim contains, for example, this paragraph recounting the allegations: The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as follows: One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin EFTA01116696 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 5 of 20 Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's coconspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on Epstein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential coconspirators of Epstein." Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Dershowitz Counterclaim at 1115 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4). Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed "confidential" and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at ¶15 (block quotation above) with Motion to Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed "confidential" document that includes paragraph beginning "[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's . . . ."). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as "confidential." See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 ("although generally protected by one's privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected EFTA01116697 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure" (emphasis added)). H. JUDGE MARRA'S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra's order striking some of the materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept confidential in this case. Dershowitz's argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge Marra's order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading -- description of the events surrounding Judge Marra's ruling striking certain documents. A more complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are somehow "confidential" even in the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act case — much less in this separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz's close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of "Jane Doe No. 1" and "Jane Doe No. 2" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. 1and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery EFTA01116698 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 7 of 20 followed (see generally Docket Entry or "DE" 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE 225-I at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were "privileged" for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the case, including Ms. who was identified in court pleadings as "Jane Doe No. 3"). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not respond to counsel's request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims' counsel might need to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a motion immediately, victims' counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection, without indicating any reason: "Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation." See DE 291 at 5. EFTA01116699 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 8 of 20 Because the Government now contested the joinder motion, Edwards and Cassell prepared a more detailed pleading explaining the justification for granting the motion. One week after receiving the Government's objection, on December 30, 2014, Ms. i.e., Jane Doe No. 3) and Jane Doe No. 4 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion) seeking to join the case. DE 279 and DE 280. (Note: DE 280 is the first of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared "confidential" in this case.) Uncertain as to the basis for the Government's objection, the motion briefly proffered the circumstances that would qualify the two women as "victims" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining "crime victim" protected under the Act). With regard to Ms. the motion indicated that when she was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Dershowitz and Prince Andrew (among others) for sexual purposes. Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was prepared to prove her proffer. See DE 280 at 3 ("If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe No. 3 would prove the following . . . . "). The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new victims was relevant to existing issues). After the motion was filed, various news organizations published articles about it. Dershowitz also made numerous media statements about the filing, including calling Jane Doe No. 3 "a serial liar" who "has lied through her teeth about many world leaders." http://www.ctui.com/2015/0 I /06/us/dershowitz-sex-allegationt Dershowitz also repeatedly called Edwards and Cassell "two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarable lawyers." Id. On EFTA01116700 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 9 of 20 January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene to argue to have the allegations stricken. DE 282. Dershowitz also argued that Ms. had not provided a sworn affidavit M attesting to the truth of her allegations. On January 21, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a response for Mad Jane Doe No. 4. DE 291. (Note: This is the second of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have kept under seal here.) The response enumerated nine specific reasons why Ms. M case, including the fact that Ms specific allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to the eeded to establish that she was a "victim" in the case, that pending discovery requests concerning Dershowitz-specific documents were pending, and that Dershowitz's role as a defense attorney in the case was highly relevant to the motive for the Government and defense counsel to conceal the plea deal from the victims. DE 291 at 17-26 & n.17. The response included a detailed affidavit from ut the sexual abuse she had Ms=lo suffered from Epstein, Dershowitz, and other powerful persons. DE 291-1. On February 6, 2015, Edwards and Cassell filed a further pleading (and affidavit from Ms ee DE 291- 1) in support of her motion to intervene. (Note: this affidavit is the third of the three documents Dershowitz seeks to have declared confidential.) On April 7, 2015, Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case. Judge Marra concluded that "at this juncture in the proceedings" details about the sexual abuse she had suffered was unnecessary to making a determination "of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join [the other victims'] claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. EFTA01116701 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 10 of 20 Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government." DE 324 at 5 (emphasis in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that "Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims] demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court's consideration. Judge Marra then denied Motion to join the case, but allowed her to participate as trial witness: "The necessary 'participation' of [ a in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported — and relevant, admissible, and . non-cumulative — testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests." DE 324 at 8 (emphasis deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims "may re-refile these documents omitting the stricken portions." DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the documents. In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that "Judge Marra's Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the public docket." Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits factual details about Dershowitz's sexual abuse of MMD be presented in regard to pertinent matters in thefederal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra's Order could render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl around Edwards and Cassell's good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. moving EFTA01116702 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page I I of 20 party in that case), not as to her attorneys Edwards and Cassell. See Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703 (4'h DCA 2002) ("In order for res judicata to apply four identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made."). III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THEY ARE BARRED FROM QUOTING FROM THE RECORD WHILE DERSHOWITZ IS PERMITTED TO FREELY REFER TO THEM WHENEVER HE FINDS IT CONVENIENT. Dershowitz is also incorrect when he asserts that no prejudice will befall Edwards and Cassell if the records are placed under seal. To the contrary, placing the documents under seal would permit Dershowitz to continue to misrepresent and distort what is contained in those records while preventing Edwards and Cassell from correcting those misrepresentations. Dershowitz has repeatedly referred to details in the records when he has found it convenient to do so — treating the records as not confidential in any away. One clear example comes from Dershowitz's recent deposition, where he gratuitously injected into the record a reference to a portion of Msedavit about him watching a perform oral sex on Epstein. And then, having injected that gratuitous reference into the record, he proceeded to try to rebut the reference with confidential settlement discussions — but did so by mispresenting what another attorney (David Boies) had said during the settlement discussions. So that the Court may have the full flavor of the exchange, the narrow question to Dershowitz (by attorney Jack EFTA01116703 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 12 of 20 Scarola) and Dershowitz's extended answer are quoted in full — including Dershowitz's reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court should treat as "confidential": Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? ... A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014, end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way inappropriately with regard to at I ever touched her, that I ever met her, thatilir atwit ter. I was completely aware of that. There had never been any allegation. She claims under oath that she told you that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I think she's lying through her teeth when she says that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any such information. But if she did tell you that, she would be absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal pleading at the end of Dece never alleged that I had any sexual contact wi I know that it was alleged that I was a witness to e ey pstein's alleged abuse and that was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, something that you have falsely denied. And I stand on the record. The record is clear that I have categorically denied I was ever a witness to any abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing anybody. And and the very idea that I would stand and talk to Je Epstein while he was receiving oral sexfro which she swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so preposterous, that even DavidBoies saidhe couldn't believe it was true. MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm not going to allow you to reveal any conversations that happened in the context of a settlement discussion. THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? EFTA01116704 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15.000072 Edwards and CasselIs Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 13 of 20 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have standing in this deposition? MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a minute, okay? THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has standing. MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the speech? MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the speech so that we can get to my question and then we can take a break. A. So the question -- the answer to your question is -- MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose something that she has a right to raise that objection if she wants to. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. IS, 2015) at 93-95 (attached as Exhibit 1); see also Deposition Sir fA Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2016) (attached as Exhibit 2) (also containing discussion of Ms ffidavit). The Court should be aware that within approximately two hours of this exchange, Ms. McCawley (David Boies' law partner) released a statement on his behalf, which stated that Dershowitz was misrepresenting what happened: "Because the discussions that Mr. Boies had with Mr. Dershowitz were expressly privileged settlement discussions, Mr. Boies will not, at least at this time, describe what was actually said. However, Mr. Boies does state that Mr. EFTA01116705 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15.000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 14 of 20 Dershowitz description of what was said is not true." Statement of Ms. McCawley on Behalf of David Boies (Oct. 15, 2015). More broadly, the Court can readily see from this passage how Dershowitz is willing to inject into the record a part of Ms. Affidavit whenever it serves his purpose — and, indeed, to characterize the part of the affidavit as "preposterous." But then he asks this Court to place the underlying affidavit under seal, so that the Edwards and Cassell stand accused having filed a "preposterous" affidavit without anyone being able to assess the validity of Dershowitz's attack. Dershowitz has referred to the court records that he now wishes to have the Court declare confidential not only in his deposition, but also in his widely-broadcast media attacks on Edwards and Cassell. For example, Dershowitz appeared on the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) and was asked about the allegations: Well, first of all they were made in court papers that they don't even ask for a hearing to try to prove them. They put them in court papers in order to immunize themselves from any consequences from a defamation suit. The story is totally made up, completely out of whole cloth. I don't know this woman. I was not at the places at the times. It is part of a pattern of made up stories against prominent people and world leaders. And the lawyers in recent statement challenged me to deny the allegations under oath. I am doing that. I am denying them under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution were I not telling the truth. Jam now challenging them to have their client put these charges under oath and for them to put them under oath. I am also challenging them to repeat them outside of the context of court papers so that I can sue them for defamation. . . . And I will prove beyond any doubt not only that the story is totally false, but it was knowingly false: that the lawyers and the client conspired together to create afalse story. That is why I am moving for their disbarment in challenges to be provided to the disciplinary committee. BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) (httn://www.bbc.co.uk/nrogrammes/p02a7qbc). EFTA01116706 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 15 of 20 Similarly, Dershowitz appeared on NBC's Today Show the morning after Edwards and Cassell made a filing for Mslay that the Edwards and Cassell — and were all "lying" in the court documents: Question from Savannah Guthrie: In legal papersfrom the lawyers, they say you've had, in fact, the opportunity to be deposed. Answer from Alan Dershowitz: They're lying. They're lying. Question: They show letters in which they offered to depose you. Answer: And they didn't show my letters in response saying, (a), if you ask me about my legal relationship with Epstein and I'll be happy to answer. . . . And I responded that I would be happy to be deposed if you could give me any indication that 1 would be a relevant witness . . . . They will be proved — all of them (i.e., Cassell, Edwards, and Ms. to be categorically lying and making up this story. And it will be a terrible thing or rape victims. . . . We [Epstein and Dershowitz] had an academic relationship. I was never in the presence of a single, young, underaged woman. When I was with him, it was with prominent scientists, prominent academics. And they're just — again — lying about this. I never saw him doing anything improper. I was not a participant. I was not a witness. Today Show, Jan. 22, 2015 (emphases added). As another example, in Miami Herald, Dershowitz called the Joinder Motion that he seeks to have sealed "the sleaziest legal document I have ever seen. They [Edwards and Cassell] manipulated a young, suggestible woman who was interested in money. This is a disbarrable offense, and they will be disbarred. They will rue the day they ever made this false charge against me" — i.e., Edwards and Cassell will "rue the day" they ever filed the Joinder Motion. Miami Herald (Jan. 3, 2015). EFTA01116707 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and CasselIs Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 16 of 20 Most remarkably, Dershowitz took the public airwaves to represent that he wanted all of the information surrounding the allegations to "be made public," while implying that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. For example, on the BBC he claimed that he wanted"everything to be made public": Q: Would you encourage that it now be made public? A: Of course, of course. I want everything to be made public. I want every bit of evidence in this case to be made public. I want every allegation to be made public. I want to know who else she's accused of these horrible crimes. We know that she accused Bill Clinton of being on Jeffrey Epstein's island and participating in sex orgy with underage girls. The records of the Secret Service will prove that President Clinton never set foot on that island. So that she lied. Now it's possible to have a case of mistaken identification with somebody like me. It's impossible to have a case of mistaken identification with Bill Clinton. My only feeling is that if she has lied about me, which I know to an absolute certainty she has, she should not be believed about anyone else. She's lied clearly about me, she's lied clearly about Bill Clinton. We know that. We know that she's lied about other public figures, including a former prime minister and others who she claims to have participated in sexual activities with. So I think it must be presumed that all of her allegations against Prince Andrew are false as well. I think he [Prince Andrew] should clear the air as well. If you're squeaky clean and if you have never done anything like this, you must fight back with all the resources available to you. And that's what I will do. I will not rest or stop until the world understands no only that I had nothing to do with any of this, but that she deliberately, with the connivance of her lawyer, lawyers, made up this story willfully and knowingly. BBC Radio 4 - Sarah Montague (Jan. 3, 2015) antp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02g7lbc). In another widely-broadcast interview on CNN, Dershowitz implied that there is no evidence supporting the allegations against him: EFTA01116708 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 17 of 20 Ask them [Edwards and Cassell] if they have any evidence . . . . They're doing it for money. She's getting money for having sold her story. She wants to sell the book. They're trying to get into this lawsuit. They see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They're [Edwards and Cassell] prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. This is Professor Cassell who shouldn't be allowed near a student. This is Professor Cassell, who is a former federal judge, thank God he no longer wears a robe. He is essentially a crook. He is essentially somebody who's distorted the legal profession. . . . Why would he charge a person with a sterling reputation for 50 years on the basis of the word alone of a woman who is serial liar, who has lied about former Prime Ministers, former Presidents, has lied demonstrably. CNNLive (with Hala Gorani) (January 5, 2015). Ofcourse, byplacing "the evidence" in this case under seal, De 1befree to continue to try and insinuate that Edward andCassell — and their client, hadno evidence supporting the allegations against him, even though a mountain et?: ence s ongly support negations. See Deposition ofPaul Cassell (Oct 16, 2015) at 61-117 (Exhibit 3); ofPual Cassell (Oct 17, 2015) (Exhibit 4). CONCLUSION The Court should deny Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz's motion to place documents regarding Ms. tions against him under seal. 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 25r° day of November, 2015. /s/ Jack Scarola Jack Scarola Florida Bar No.: 169440 Attorney E-Mail(s): Primary E-Mail: Searcy Denney S 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard EFTA01116709 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15.000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 18 of 20 SEAN D. REYES Utah Attorney General By: JONI J. JONES JOEL A. FERRE Assistant Utah Attorneys General Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell COUNSEL LIST Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire Cole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 EFTA01116710 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowites Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 19 of 20 Attorneys for Defendant Richard A. Sim son ro hac vice) M E. Bor'a m hac vice) Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice) WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 EFTA01116711 Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE I5-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 20 of 20 COUNSEL LIST Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire Ashley Eiler, Esquire 401 E Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 1200 Richard A. Simpson, Esquire , Esquire IIIIIMIE 1776 K Street NW Thomas Emerson Scott. Jr uire Washin on DC 20006 Attorneys or A an M.Ders towitz, Esquire Joni J. Jones, Esquire ole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL 160 E 300 S Salt Lake City, UT 84114 I .IIIIPe me s or at Bradle J. Edwards • uire ,... Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Kenneth A. Sweder, E uire 131 Oliver Street I Boston, MA 02110 ttomeys or an ers squire EFTA01116712 Exhibit 1 EFTA01116713  1 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, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. / VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ VOLUME 1 Pages 1 through 179 Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:31 a.m. - 4:13 p.m. Cole Scott & Kissane 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator EFTA01116714  93 1 people that abused Virginia? 2 A. I told you I never asked her the question. 11:36:21 3 Q. Are you aware that years before December 11:36:48 4 of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your 5 name had come up repeatedly in connection with 6 Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, correct? 7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, overly broad. 11:37:16 8 A. Let me answer that question. I am aware 11:37:17 9 that never before 2014, end of December, was it 10 ever, ever alleged that I had acted in any way 11 inappropriately with regard to 12 that I ever touched her, that I ever met her, that I 13 had ever been with her. I was completely aware of 14 that. There had never been any allegation. 15 She claims under oath that she told you 11:37:48 16 that secretly in 2011, but you have produced no 17 notes of any such conversation. You, of course, are 18 a witness to this allegation and will be deposed as 19 a witness to this allegation. I believe it is an 20 entirely false allegation that she told you in 2011 21 that she had had any sexual contact with me. I 22 think she's lying through her teeth when she says 23 that. And I doubt that your notes will reveal any 24 such information. 25 But if she did tell you that, she would be 11:38:24 EFTA01116715  94 1 absolutely, categorically lying. So I am completely 2 aware that never, until the lies were put in a legal 3 pleading at the end of December 2014, it was never 4 alleged that I had any sexual contact with 5 6 I know that it was alleged that I was a 11:38:46 7 witness to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse and that 8 was false. I was never a witness to any of Jeffrey 9 Epstein's sexual abuse. And I wrote that to you, 10 something that you have falsely denied. And I stand 11 on the record. The record is clear that I have 12 categorically denied I was ever a witness to any 13 abuse, that I ever saw Jeffrey Epstein abusing 14 anybody. 15 And -- and the very idea that I would 11:39:18 16 stand and talk to Jeffrey Epstein while he was 17 receiving oral sex from hich she 18 swore to under oath, is so outrageous, so 19 preposterous, that even David Boies said he couldn't 20 believe it was true. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: I object. I object. I'm 11:39:40 22 not going to allow you to reveal any 23 conversations that happened in the context of a 24 settlement discussion. 25 THE WITNESS: Does she have standing? 11:39:46 EFTA01116716  95 1 MS. McCAWLEY: I have a standing objection 11:39:47 2 and, I'm objecting again. I'm not going to -- 3 THE WITNESS: No, no, no. Does she have 11:39:49 4 standing in this deposition? 5 MR. SCOTT: Let's take a break for a 11:39:51 6 minute, okay? 7 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure she has 11:39:54 8 standing. 9 MR. SCAROLA: Are we finished with the 11:39:57 10 speech? 11 MR. SCOTT: No. If he -- 11:39:58 12 MR. SCAROLA: I'd like him to finish the 11:39:59 13 speech so that we can get to my question and 14 then we can take a break. 15 A. So the question -- the answer to your 11:40:02 16 question is 17 MR. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 11:40:04 18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose 19 something that she has a right to raise that 20 objection if she wants to. 21 MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14 23 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. 11:40:17 24 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back 11:40:20 25 the last couple of sentences. EFTA01116717 Exhibit 2 EFTA01116718  180 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, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,