EXHIBIT Case Document Filed Page of Filing E-Filed PM Case Document Filed Page of BRADLEY EDWARDS and PAUL CASSELL Plaintiffs VS ALAN DERSHOWITZ Defendant I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROW ARD COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO CACE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL Paul Cassell by and through his undersigned attorneys responds to Defendants Motion to Compel as follows FACTS On February Dershowitz served his First Set of Document Requests and his First set of Interrogatories on Plaintiffs On March I I Plaintiffs responded to these discovery requests Their responses included answers to interrogatories responses to requests for production and specific objections to particular interrogatories and requests for production Many hundreds of responsive documents were produced in July On August Plaintiffs served supplemental responses to Dershowitzs request for production The supplemental responses reasserted the bulk of Plaintiffs objections but clarified the documents Plaintiffs considered responsive to Request for Production No includin the specific identification of a publicly available document identified as DOC in the matter Does United States S.D Fla filed July the CVRA Action and the publicly available materials found in Epstein Edwards et al Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page2 Circuit Court of the th Cir for Palm Beach County Epstein Edwards The Supplemental responses also identified the pleadings discovery responses and depositions in twenty-four civil proceedings in which Dershowitzs client Jeffrey Epstein is named as a party DOC merits specific discussion DOC thoroughly outlines The relationship between Dershowitz and Epstein Dershowitzs role representing Epstein during the criminal investigation of Epstein Dershowitzs role in negotiating the Non-Prosecution Agreement the NPA between Epstein and the United States Facts inferring that Dershowitz was aware of Epsteins illegal sexual activities with underage girls and Dershowitzs participation in those activities In addition to the numerous citations to publicly available media stories concerning Epstein DOC included exhibits Those exhibits included inter alia A detailed and direct dec1aration of Jane Doe concerning her sexual contact with Epstein Dershowitz and others A Statement of Undisputed Facts containing paragraphs of supported factual material detailing Epsteins sexual abuse of children Deposition excerpts identifying Dershowitz as one of Epsteins associates Deposition excerpts placing Dershowitz in Epsteins home on numerous occasions and when girls were present Deposition excerpts indicating Dershowitz received a massage at Epsteins home Portions of an address book containing Dershowitzs name and contact information which an Epstein associate characterized as the Holy Grail and Nwnerous demonstrably incomplete flight manifests showing tbat Jane Doe No was transported on Epsteins private plane See Plaintiffs Response to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan Dershowitz Of course production of Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page this document to Mr Dershowitz was unnecessary as it was specifically filed in the CVRA case to oppose his efforts to intervene in that case and was unquestionably already in his possession Plaintiffs subsequently delivered a Bates stamped version of their original July document production to Dershowitzs counsel Additionally Plaintiffs counsel have identified approximately four boxes of documents that they have offered to make available to Dershowitzs counsel for inspection As of todays date Plaintiffs have produced all documents which are properly subject to discovery in this action either by producing a copy directly to Dershowitz or identifying publicly available pleadings which are responsive and easily obtainable by Dershowitz Plaintiffs have complied with this Courts order and indicated that they have produced all responsive non-privileged docwnents See Notice of Compliance with Discovery Order Dated July ARGUMENT The Attorney-Client and Work Produd Privileges Were Not Waived a Attorney-Client Privilege The attorney-client privilege is codified under Floridas Title VII Evidence The statute provides that neither an attorney nor a client may be compelled to divulge confidential communications between a lawyer and client which were made during the rendition of legal services Fla Stat Ann Communication denotes more than just giving legal advice it also includes giving information to the lawyer to enable him to render sound and informed advice Hagans GaJorland Kubota LLC/Sentry Ins So.3d Fla 1st DCA citing Upjohn Co U.S U.S To that end the attorney-client Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page4 privilege under Florida law protects from discovery not only Plaintiffs advice to Jane Doe but any information that Jane Doe told Plaintiffs in confidence Generally the burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege rests on the party claiming it Turney So.2d atl85 citing Fisher United States U.S but when communications appear on their face to be privileged the burden is on the party seeking disclosure to prove facts which would make an exception to the privilege applicable Ford Motor Co Hall-Edwards So.2d Fla 3d DCA Rousso Hannon So.3d Fla 3d DCA In this case there is no real dispute that an attorney-client privilege ex:ists with regard to the communications between Jane Doe and Plaintiffs Dershowitz argument is that the privilege should be waived Therefore the burden is on Dershowitz to overcome the privilege Dershowitz asserts that he is entitled to the privileged communications between Jane Doe and her counsel under the at issue doctrine Dershowitz relies on two federal district court cases Hearn Rhay F.R.D E.D Wash and Pitney Bowes Inc Mestre F.R.D S.D Fla both apply federal not Florida law Under Florida law which applies to this state law defamation claim waiver only occurs if the privileged communication is required to prove a claim Guarantee Ins Co Heffernan Ins Brokers Inc F.R.D S.D Fla Dershowitz cannot make this showing i Since Jane Doe is the sole possessor of the attorney client privilege Edwards and Cassell could not put Jane Doe 3s privileged information at-issue in the defamation suit against Dersbowitz Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion Compel Page First and foremost Dershowitzs at issue argument fails because it relies on the asswnption that Edwards and Cassell are the holders of the attorney-client privilege and have authority to waive the attorney-client privilege They are not and they do not In this case only Jane Doe as the client has authority to waive the privilege She is not a party to this case The holdings in Savino Luciano So.2d Fla Coates Akerman Senterfitt Edison P.A So.2d Fla 2d DCA and Genovese Provident Life and Accident J,u Co So.3d Fla all make plain that only the holder of the privilege can put the privileged communication at issue Indeed in each of these cases it was the client who brought the action not the attorneys as is the case here This distinction alone makes the atnissue doctrine inapplicable Under Florida law the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client not the attorney Fla Stat Ann See also Fla Stat Ann A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were made in the rendition oflegal services to the client Although Jane Doe is not a party to the current action the privilege is still hers alone A client may assen the privilege even though the client is not a party to the action in which the communication might be disclosed Gerheiser Stephens So.2d Fla 4lh DCA Charles Ehrhardt I Fla Prac Evidence ed Some courts have even recognized that there could be serious due process issues created by a procedure through which a client lost their privilege without notice or an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings Rogers State So.2d Fla 2d DCA Under Jane Doe has the right to refuse to disclose the contents of confidential communications made during the rendition of legal services by Edwards and Cassell As long as the Jane Doe has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication under the privilege is _protected Mcwatters State So.3d Fla I Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Der.ihowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page Plaintiffs could not nor did they waive the attorney-client privilege by filing a personal defamation claim against Dershowitz Dershowitz has cited no authority establishing that an exception to the privilege applied or that Jane Doe ever consented to a waiver of the privilege ii The test set out in Savino or at-issue doctrine is not met with regard to the defamation action fi.led by Edwards and Cassell Even if Plaintiffs were able to waive Jane Doe 3s attorney-client privilege Dershowitzs at issue argument fails because it does not meet the at-issue test as set out in Savino Luciano So.2d Fla In Savino a defendant filed a counterclaim based on an audit and report from a certified public accountant Id.at There was no doubt that at trial the defendant would rely on the audit and report Id at However the defendant asserted that for the purposes of discovery the audit and report were confidential and privileged Id The court found this to be an anomaly and held that the defendant waived his privilege during the discovery procedure because there was no doubt that the defendant would use privileged information as proof of his defenses and counterclaim at trial and his pleadings led inescapably to that conclusion Id Therefore the test for whether a claim or defense will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence under the at-issue doctrine is whether the holder of the privilege clearly intends to offer the privileged matter at trial and that intent is clear in the pleadings i.e the complaint Id see also Diaz-Verson Walbridge Aldinger Co So.3d I Fla 2d DCA In Coates Akerman Senterfltt Edison P.A So.2d Fla 2d DCA the court explained the holding in Savino did not mean that a party waives attorney-client privilege Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page merely by bringing or defending a lawsuit Id Waiver only occurs when a party raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of privileged information Id In Coates clients brought claims against their former lawyers based on the legal advice the lawyers allegedly gave with regard to a plan and joint venture Id Since the clients oould not establish their claim against the lawyers at trial without evidence of the advice the lawyers gave the court found that the privilege was waived with regard to the communications between the former lawyers and the clients Id On the other hand the clients did not put at issue their communications with other professionals regarding the plan and joint venture by suing the lawyers Id Rather the lawyers by asserting a defense based upon the clients communications with other professionals put the communications at issue The court held that an opposing party cannot waive a partys attorney client privilege based on the possibility that disputed communications may be relevant to or may assist the opposing party in their defense or in their thinl party claims Id at Under Coates Dershowtiz cannot claim that Plaintiffs put attorney client communications at issue just because those communications might help Dershowitz defend the defamation action See Def Mot to Compel at C"It would be inequitable to preclude Dershowitz from proving this affirmative defense by upholding privilege In Genovese Provident Life and Accident Ins Co the Florida Supreme Court further clarified that the attorney-client privilege is not concerned with the litigation needs of the opposing party and that there is no exception provided under that allows the discovery of attorney-client privileged communications where the requesting party has demonstrated need or undue hardship Id at The purpose of the attorney-client privilege Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page is to encourage full and frank communication between the attorney and the client Id This significant goal of the privilege would be severely hampered if a client were aware that her communications with her attorney which were not intended to be disclosed could be revealed upon the request of the opposing party Id The court cited both Coates and Savino to show that the at issue doctrine allows discovery of privileged material only when the holder of the privilege the client raises the advice of counsel as a claim or defense in the action and the communication is essential to the claim or defense Id Dershowitz asserts that in order to establish he defamed Plaintiffs they must show that i they conducted an investigation regarding the credibility of Jane Doe 3s allegations against Dershowitz and ii that the allegations asserted against Dershowitz by Jane Doe were well founded Dershowitz Mot to Compel pp But to make this assertion Dershowitz must show the complaint filed against him is premised on privileged information which they would have to introduce at trial in order to establish defamation Dershowitz has not made this showing Instead Dershowitz merely points to paragraph of the Complaint Paragraph states Immediately following the filing of what 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 Edwards and Paul 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 disbannent Titis paragraph is not a clear indication that Plaintiffs must introduce privileged information to establish that Dershowitz defamed them In fact Dershowitz himself asserts that Plaintiffs made Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE I Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page the information and documents they seek to withhold directly relevant to the issues in dispute Dershowitz Mot to Compel emphasis added Relevance is insufficient to waive privilege under Florida law Guarantee Ins F.R.D at citing Coyne Schwartz Gold Cohen Zakarin Kotler P.A So.2d Fla th DCA Dershowitz must show that Plaintiffs made clear in their complaint that they would rely on privileged information as evidence at trial He has fwled to make this showing Therefore the at-issue test as stated in Savino has not been met Attorney-Work Product Although Dershowitz peppers his privilege argument with assertions that Edwards and Cassell have waived their work product privilege he cites no authority The at issue legal theory Dershowits relies on to argue incorrectly that attorney-client privilege has been waived applies only to that privilege The work product doctrine is quite distinct from attorney-client privilege and application of the privileges and exception to them differ West Bend Mutual Ins Co Higgins So.3d Fla th DCA The function of the work product doctrine is to protect counsels mental impressions Id To pierce the privilege Dershowitz must show that the substantial equivalent of the material cannot be obtained by other means Bell Tel Tel Co Deason So.2d Dershowitzhasnotevenidentified any specific work product he claims to need much less shown why he cannot get the underlying information from another source The Court should disregard Dershowitzs assertions that Cassell and Edwards waived their work product privilege because Dershowitz has made no argument to support his sweeping assertions Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page Plaintifrs Relevancy and Admissibility Objections Discovery requests must be relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and must seek admissible evidence or be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence Davich Norman Bros Nissan Inc So 2d Fla DCA emphasis added Fla Civ While relevancy in the discovery context is broad er than in the trial context and a party may be permitted to discover relevant evidence that would be admissible at trial if it may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence litigants are not entitled to carte blanche discovery of irrelevant material Tanchel Shoemaker So 2d Fla th DCCA quoting Residence Inn by Marriott Cecile Resort Ltd So 2d Fla th DCA a Request for Production No As discussed below Plaintiffs provided an exhaustive response to this request including DOC and exhibits and the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts filed in Epstein Edwards which explicitly detail Dershowitzs participation in Epsteins criminal conduct All documents which are relevant admissible or likely to lead to discoverable evidence which are responsive to this request have been Produced Made available for inspection at Plaintiffs counsels office or Identified and available to Dershowitz in public case files Plaintiffs production consists of the known universe of documents that are responsive to this request and to the extent Dershowitz seeks additional materials they are certainly beyond the scope of discovery and as to those documents the objection is appropriate Additionally as Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page discussed below any material covered by the attorney-client or attorney-work product would also be beyond the scope of discovery irrelevant and/or inadmissible Request for Production Nos and These requests seek pleading drafts internal documents and drafts and attorney client communications concerning press releases notes concerning Plaintiffs investigation into Jane Does allegations against Dershowitz and Jane Doe herself and notes and attorney-client communications concerning potential media deals for Jane Doe and notes and attorney-client communications used to draft Jane Doe No motion to intervene As stated above the Jane Doe has not waived the attorney-client privilege and the requested material is inadmissible attorney-client and attorney-work product See Fla Evid Law Revision Council Plaintiffs relevancy and admissibility objections to these requests were proper Plaintiffs Remaining Objections Are Sufficiently Specific Objections to a request for production can be made either because the items requested are not within the permissible scope of discovery or on any ground that would support an application for protective order under Rule American Funding Ltd Hill So 2d Fla th DCA The grounds provided for under Rule are Dershowitz also argues that relevancy and admissibility objections to Interrogatory Nos and and Requests for Production Nos and should be overruled Plaintiffs did not raise relevancy and admissibility objections to Interrogatory Nos and Similarly Plaintiffs did not raise relevancy and admissibility objections to Requests for Production No and except to the extent raised in Plaintiffs responses to other requests for production and particularly Plaintiffs responses to Request Nos and Case Document Filed Page of F.dwards Bradley vs Dershowiu Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page annoyance embarrassment oppression or undue burden or expense To preserve the objection the response to the request for production of docwnents need only set forth the objection and the reason for the objection Bartolo-Avenlura Inc Hernandez So.2d The foregoing authority necessarily applies equally to objections to interrogatories as the language in the rule concerning the making of an objection to an interrogatory is identicaJ to the language concerning the making of an objection to a request for production See Fla Civ a 225Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath unless it is objected to in which event the grounds for objection shall be stated and Fla Civ For each item or category the response shall state that inspection and related activities will be pennitted as requested unless the request is objected to in which event the reasons for the objection shaJI be stated In each instance where Plaintiffs raised objections beyond the attorney-client privileg attorney-work product and relevance and admissibility Plaintiffs stated the reason for the objection Moreover Dershowitz has failed to identify which if any of Plaintiffs request specific objections is insufficient making instead a generalized argument that all of these objections fail regardless of the request-specific context in which the objections were raised Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their objections complied with the rules Plaintiffs however cannot guess as to why Dershowitz thinks a particular request-specific objection is improper Plaintiffs objections accordingly should be sustained Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE I Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page Plaintiffs Have Either Produced or Identified All Documents Concerning Dersbowitzs Relationship With Epstein and His Involvement in Epsteins Criminal Activities A Plaintiffs Production Adequately Identifies the Documents Supporting Plaintiffs Claims and Defenses in this Action As detailed in the introduction in response to Plaintiffs Request for Production No Plaintiffs either produced or identified an exhaustive number of documents Finally and most significantly Plaintiffs identified and produced DOC which plainly identifies publicly available documents and includes voluminous exhibits identifying Epsteins crimes Dershowitzs relationship with Epstein Dershowitzs representation of Epstein and facts indicating Dershowitzs knowledge of Epsteins activities and participation in the same For Dershowitz to claim after having litigated the issues raised in DOC and studying its contents that he cannot determine which documents implicate him in Epsteins criminal conduct negotiating the NP A for his own benefit and documents evincing Plaintiffs investigation of him is disingenuous DOC and its attachments including the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Epstein Edwards thoroughly and completely identify the documents Dershowitz needs to have to understand Plaintiffs claims and defenses in this action Moreover while Dershowitz claims Plaintiffs resporu;es were inadequate under Florida law he cites not authority for this proposition It is apparent that Dershowitzs real motivation for filing this motion to compel was not to obtain responsive documents but to force Plaintiffs to explain why they identified the responsive documents and prematurely produce an exhibit list Plaintiffs discovery responses were more than adequate and Dershowitzs motion to compel additional responses should be denied Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page Dersbowitz Has the Same Access to Public Documents As do Plaintiffs In addition to the documents produced directly to Dershowitz and/or made available for him to inspect at counsels office Plaintiffs identified the case files in civil lawsuits as responsive to Dershowitzs request These files demonstrate the magnitude of Epsteins criminal conduct and the unlikelihood that Dershowitz was ignorant of his confidant and close friends criminal behavior Dershowitz complains that some of the documents are sealed or otherwise unavailable to him A review of the federal cases identified in Plaintiffs responses however reveals in the federal cases approximately sixty-five pleadings out of hundreds of documents were sealed and many of them have subsequently been unsealed The documents that remain sealed are almost exclusively related to a single sealed civil case Case No I KAM Plaintiffs did not represent parties in that case and do not have access to those documents This case was almost certainly sealed on Epsteins request after settlement and Dershowitz is undoubtedly familiar with its contents given his association with Epstein Dershowitzs argument also fails to comprehend that the documents that remain sealed are sealed as to Plaintiffs as well Moreover given the magnitude and thoroughness of the production already made available to Dershowitz the sealed documents are almost certainly duplicative of material already produced and available to Dershowitz Finally Plaintiffs have produced numerous depositions and deposition excerpts Plaintiffs have not conducted a similar analysis of the State Court dockets but Dershowitz has not identified any sealed documents in the State Court dockets that he believes he is entitled to Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE I Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page that were in their possession and/or made them available to Dershowitz to inspect and his complaint that he does not have access to these materials is not factually supported Dershowitz Is In the Better Position to Know What Documents Concern His Negotiation of the NP A Plaintiffs in their extensive production produced identified or made available for inspection all known and unsealed documents related to Dershowitzs negotiation of the NPA for his benefit Ifthere are responsive documents that were not included in this response Dershowitz is in a better position than Plaintiffs to know what those documents are yet has failed to identify any such document with sufficient specificity to permit Plaintiffs to conduct an investigation into whether the documents exists and are in their possession or control Further Plaintiffs have in fact attempted to discover this information from Dershowitz only to be stonewalled by him Dershowitzs complaint that Plaintiffs response to his Request for Production No fails to produce responsive documents accordingly is not well taken Dershowitz Is Not Entitled to Compel Discovery of PlaintiWs Fee Agreement with Jane Doe Discovery of an opposing partys legal costs is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court and the trial courts discretion is tempered by the requirement that any information sought must be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action Anderson Columbia Brown So.2d Fla st DCA Fla Civ Rule Although an attorney fee agreement is generally not privileged Florida has not yet adopted a hard and fast rule regarding the discovery and admission of opposing counsels fees Anderson Columbia Brown So.2d Fla st DCA citing Mangel Bob Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page Dance Dodge Inc So.2d Fla th DCA Plaintiffs are not required to reveal information containing descriptions of the services rendered to Jane Doe No If the billing statements or fee agreement at issue include detailed descriptions of the nature of the services rendered and could reveal the mental impressions and opinions of the Jane Doe No Js counsel to Dershowitz the billing statements may be protected from discovery by both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine Old Holdings Ltd Taplin Howard Shaw Miller P.A So.2d Fla th DCA Fla Civ bX4 see Markel Am Ins Co Baker So 3d Fla Dist Ct App Opinion work product consists primarily of the attorneys mental impressions conclusions opinions and theories concerning the clients case and is basically absolutely privileged Bell Tel Tel Co Deason So.2d Under these circumstances Edwards and Cassell are entitled to an in camera review of the documents prior to disclosure to Dershowitz Butler Harter So 3d Fla st DCA citing Airlines Inc Gellbert So.2d Fla 3d Dershowitz is Not Entitled to Book Television or Movie Deal Documents A Dershowitz Is Not Entitled to Documents that Are Not in Plaintiffs Possession or Under Their Control and Supervision Plaintiffs do possess or control any signed media agreements either between themselves and media companies or between Jane Doe No and prospective media companies Plaintiffs have no obligation to produce documents which are not in their possession or which are under their control and supervision Frilz Norflor Const Co So.2d Ha DCA Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Der..howitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Derendants Motion to Compel Page Any media deals Jane Doe No a non-party may have negotiated but did not provide to Plaintiffs are beyond their control and supervision and cannot be produced in response to Dershowitzs discovery request Any Communications Between Plaintiffs and Jane Doe No Concerning Media Deals Are Privileged Absent a signed contract in Plaintiffs possession the only plausibly responsive documents Plaintiffs could produce in response to Request for Production No would be Plaintiffs commlica.tions with Jane Doe No concerning potential media contracts Such documents are plainly protected by attorney-client privilege The privileged character of these communications is not negated by Dershowitzs claimed need to probe her and her lawyers financial motivations The Florida District Court of appeal has plainly held that the attorney client privilege is not waived by a party unless the party raises a claim that necessarily will require proof by way of a privileged commwncation Jenney Airdata Wiman Inc So.2d Fla 2d DCA That has not happened here Jane Doe No Js intent and motivation in negotiating a media contract is not necessary to prove Plaintiffs defamation claims Moreover Jane Doe No is not a party to this case and has not put her intent and motivation at issue Finally as discussed above the attorney-client privilege belongs to Jane Doe No not Plaintiffs and she has not waived it in this case Discovery Received from the U.S Attorneys Office in the CVRA Case Remains Sealed Dershowitzs assertion that discovery from the United States in the CVRA has been unsealed is wrong On January Judge Marra ruled that before victims counsel i.e Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page Edwards and Cassell could use any of the correspondence in a proceeding they had to seek a ruling from the appropriate institution for example from the federal court in the CVRA case See DE at Thereafter Cassell and Edwards did seek a ruling that they could use the correspondence in the federal CVRA case The Court ultimately ruled that there was no privilege to the materials involved DE Epstein then appealed to the th Circuit which affirmed Judge Marras order holding that no privilege prevents the disclosure of the plea negotiations Jane Doe No United States of America F.3d I 1th Cir Thereafter Epstein moved for a confidentiality order Judge Marra granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part DE Judge Marra asked for the drafting of a protective order After further litigation about the scope of the protective order on April Judge Marra denied the issuance of any supplemental protective order and ordered that victims counsel could file any of the correspondence that they wanted in support of motions in the CVRA case DE at However Judge Marra also cautioned that any such filing of correspondence should be limited to those materials that were pertinent to a matter fairly presented for judicial resolution DE at All correspondence that has not been made public elsewhere remains under seal wtless and until plaintiffs counsel find a good faith reason for including it in filings in support of motions in the CVRA case Stated otherwise the only correspondence that is not sealed at this time is correspondence that has been filed publicly either in the CVRA case or elsewhere Any Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page such correspondence is easily available to Dershowitz in the public court files of the CVRA case or elsewhere Additionally several hundred pages of correspondence have already been provided to Dershowitz See e.g Bates These materials were properly and publicly filed in the Edwards Epstein action and are thus no longer under seal While these materials are publicly accessible to Dershowitz they have already been provided directly to him It is ironic that Dershowitz is claiming difficulty in obtaining the correspondence By definition the materials at issue involve correspondence sent either to or from the defense team a group that includes Dershowitz Finally Dershowitz never clearly explains how these materials regarding plea negotiations in to about crimes committed in to are relevant to his defamation action alleging that Edwards and Cassell made inappropriate statements in Plaintiffs Have Already Certified Their Compliance With This Courts Discovery Order Plaintiffs have already complied with this Courts July Agreed Order on Motions to Compel by filing their Notice of Compliance with Discovery Order on July Plaintiffs continue to conduct their investigation into the facts of this matter and are mindful of the discovery deadlines this Courts order and their implications Dershowitz can assume All non-privileged documents that are responsive to legitimate discovery requests and in Plaintiffs possession or control have been produced or are available to him for inspection All non-privileged documents that are responsive to legitimate discovery requests and not in Plaintiffs possession or control but publicly available have been identified and Production Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page will be complete at the close of fact discovery Dershowitzs request for an extraordinary order forcing Plaintiffs conclude their investigation prior to the close of discovery and certify that they have produced all responsive documents should be denied I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and ect copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list this day of October OLA No Atto E-Mail jsx searcylaw.com and searcylaw.com mary E-Mail _Scarolateam searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida Phone Fax Attorney for Plaintiffs Case Document Filed Page of Edwards Bradley vs Dershowitz Case No CACE Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Compel Page COUNSEL LIST Sigrid Stone Mccawley Esquire smccawley bsfllp.com sperkins bsfllp.com ftleserve bsfllp.com Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Las Olas Boulevard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Phone Thomas Emerson Scott Jr Esquire Thomas.scott csklegal.com Steven.safra csklegal.com Renee.nail csklegal.com shelly.zambo csklegal.com Cole Scott Kissane P.A Dadeland Boulevard Suite Miami FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Alan Dershowitz Kenneth A Sweder Esquire ksweder sweder-ross.com Sweder Ross LLP Oliver Street Boston MA Phone Fax Attorneys for Alan Dershowitz Richard A Simpson Esquire RSimpson wileyrein.com Wiley Rein LLP Street NW Washington DC Attorneys for Alan Dershowitz Case Document Filed Page of Case No Document No Notes Order granting doc Motion to Proceed Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed Docwnent Sealed Document Endorsed Order denying doc Motion for No doc number located Docket Enny restricted/sealed until further No doc number located Docket Enny restricted/sealed until funher No doc number located Docket Entty restricted/sealed until further No doc number located Docket Enrry restricted/sealed until further No doc number located Docket Enrry restricted/sealed until further Sealed Document Unsealed see DE I Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Unsealed Mot i on to Seal Unsealed Notice of Continued Pendency of Order denying motion to file Ex Parte and Under Unsealed Sealed Document Unsealed Sealed Docwnent Order Denying motion to seal The clerk shall Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Unsealed Motion to Seal Unsealed Notice of Continued Pendency of Order denying motion to file Ex Parte and Under Unsealed Sealed Document Unsealed Sealed Document Unsealed Reply to Response to Motion re Order Denying Motion to Seal The clerk shall Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Unsealed Motion to File Under Seal Unsealed Motion to Stav Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Unsealed Reply in Support of33 Motion to Stay Order Denying Motion to Seal re Sealed Document Sealed Document Sealed Document The clerk shall unseal docker entries and and make them available fur public lin.,_n.,.tinn vfoT!of-J To Case Document Filed Page of Order Denying Motion to Stay Sealed Document Sealed Document Per this Courts Order DE the Clerk shall unseal and terminate these nf"ndin document Sealed Document Associated Cases et al Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Unsealed Motion to seal Unsealed Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal CriminaJ Action bv Jeffiev Eostein Order denying motion to file Ex Parte and Under Seal The Clerk shall unseal DE and and make them available for public inspection Unsealed Sealed Document Unsealed Sealed Document Unsealed Motion for Leave to File Unsealed Reply to Response to Motion re Defendants Motion to Stav Order Denying Motion to Seal The Clerk shall unseal DE Sealed Document Sealed Document and make them available for public insn rtion Sealed Document Associated Cases I 19-KAM et al Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Sealed Document Unsealed see DE Unsealed Motion to File Under Seal Unsealed Motion to Stav Order Denying Motion to Seal The Clerk shall u,ual DE Sealed Docwnent Sealed Docwnent and make them available for public insoection Sealed Document Associated Cases KAM et aJ No doc number located Dock et Entry restricted/sealed until further between docs notice No doc number located Docket Entry restricted/sealed until further between docs notice Sealed Document Associated Cases I 9-KAM ct al No doc number located Docket Entry restricted/sealed until further between docs notice No doc number located Docket Entry restricted/sealed urtil further between docs notice Sealed Document Associated C.ases et al N/A NIA NIA NIA I A I A Case Document Filed Page of N/A N/A System entry-Docket Enny restricted/sealed until further notice Order granting doc Motion to Proceed Anonymously granting doc Motion to Keep True Name in Sealed Envelooc Sealed Document Associated Cases et al Sealed document rb Sealed document rb NIA System Entry Docket entry restricted/sealed until further notice NIA System Fntry Docket entry restricted/sea.Jed until further notice Sealed document Unsealed see DE Sealed document Unsealed see DE Unsealed motion to se al Jeffery Epstein Unsealed Notice of Continued Pendenc of Federal Criminal Action bv Jeffrey Eostein Order Denying motion to seal The clerk shall unseal DE Sealed Document and make them available for oublic insoection Sealed Document Associated Cases et al Sealed document see DE Sealed document see DE Unsealed motion to seal by Jeffery Epstein Unsealed Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action bv Jeffrev Epstein Order denying motion to file e1 parte and under seal The clerk shall unseal DE and and make them available for public inspection at the earliest nossible time Unsealed Sealed Document See DE Unsealed Sealed Document See DE Unsealed motion for Leave to File by Jeffery Eosrein sea led Reply to Response to Motion re Defendants Motion to Stav Order Denying Motion to Seal The clerk shall unseal DE Sealed Document and make them available for oublic insnection Sealed Document Associated Cases et al Sealed Document Associated Cases et al Sealed Document Associated Cases et al Sealed document Unsealed DE Sealed document unsealed DE Sealed document unsealed DE Unsealed Reply in Suppon of33 Motion to Stay Case Document Filed Page of Order Denying Motion to Seal re Sealed Document Sealed Document Sealed Document The clerk shall unseal docket entries and and make them available for public inspection I Order denying motion to stay sealed document sealed document Per this courts order DE I Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed document unsealed see DE Sealed document unsealed see DE Unsealed motion to seal by Jeffery Epstein Unsealed Notice of Continued Pendency of Order denying motion to file Ex Parte and Under Unsealed sealed document see DE Unsealed sealed document see DE Unsealed motion for Leave to file by Jeffery Unsealed Reply to Response to Motion re Order denying motion to seal The clerk shall Sealed Document Associated Cases Sealed document unsealed DE Sealed document unsealed DE Unsealed motion to file Under Seal by Sarah Unsealed motion to tile Under Seal by Sarah Order Denying Motion to Seal The Clerk shall Sealed Document Associated Cases NIA System enny Docket entry restricted/sealed NIA System entry Docket entry restricted/sealed Sealed Document Associated Cases I A System entry Docket entry restricted/sealed I A System entry Docket entry restricted/sealed
