Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00210120DOJ Data Set 9Other

u jec :

u jec : : motion to compe -- correct proce tires . Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:01:51 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, Thanks for sending this to us. We agree this is the correct procedural format for placing the issue before the Court, on whether the government is obligated to search for, and produce, information responsive to the supplemental requests for production we objected to, as well as responding to the supplemental requests for admission, which we objected to. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp©law.utah.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:43 PM . : motion t0 compel -- correct Droceaures . Thanks for getting back to us earlier with with information about Dershowitz. We really appreciate it. As we have discussed, Brad and I think we're entitled to your Dershowitz information -- of course, you disagree. The next step now is how to present this issue to Judge Marra. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary disputes, Brad and I wanted to share with you a DRAFT motion

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00210120
Pages
2
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

u jec : : motion to compe -- correct proce tires . Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:01:51 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, Thanks for sending this to us. We agree this is the correct procedural format for placing the issue before the Court, on whether the government is obligated to search for, and produce, information responsive to the supplemental requests for production we objected to, as well as responding to the supplemental requests for admission, which we objected to. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp©law.utah.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:43 PM . : motion t0 compel -- correct Droceaures . Thanks for getting back to us earlier with with information about Dershowitz. We really appreciate it. As we have discussed, Brad and I think we're entitled to your Dershowitz information -- of course, you disagree. The next step now is how to present this issue to Judge Marra. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary disputes, Brad and I wanted to share with you a DRAFT motion

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
u jec : : motion to compe -- correct proce tires . Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:01:51 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, Thanks for sending this to us. We agree this is the correct procedural format for placing the issue before the Court, on whether the government is obligated to search for, and produce, information responsive to the supplemental requests for production we objected to, as well as responding to the supplemental requests for admission, which we objected to. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:cassellp©law.utah.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:43 PM . : motion t0 compel -- correct Droceaures . Thanks for getting back to us earlier with with information about Dershowitz. We really appreciate it. As we have discussed, Brad and I think we're entitled to your Dershowitz information -- of course, you disagree. The next step now is how to present this issue to Judge Marra. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary disputes, Brad and I wanted to share with you a DRAFT motion to compel. It is a draft -- and is still lacking some of the substantive arguments about why we think that Dershowitz information is relevant - - Brad and I are still working on that section of the motion. But we wanted to share the current draft with you now to make sure that we are making accurate representations about how you think this is the right vehicle to present these questions to the court. See pp. 1-2 and pp. 3-4 of attached draft. Brad and I are hopeful that we will finish the draft in the next few days. We then plan to circulate to you, as well as to Epstein's and Dershowitz's lawyers to get their approval (or objection) to this procedure. But before going to them, we wanted to work together with you, so that the two parties to the case could have an agreed procedure -- before turning to prospective intervenors. So -- bottom line -- understanding fully that you are not agreeing with any of our SUBSTANTIVE claims in this motion, are we moving forward PROCEDURALLY in the way the Government thinks is appropriate? If not, please let us know another way to proceed, so we can avoid objections. Thanks again for your help. Paul and Brad for the victims EFTA00210120 for the use of the addressee. eceived this message in admitted to the Utah State EFTA00210121

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainlaw.utah.edu

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 35429605 E-Filed 12/11/2015 10:08:04 AM

26p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
House OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

FBI reports providing over 190,000 victim services in FY 2011 under VRRA

The passage merely cites routine victim‑services statistics and procedural discussion of the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act. It contains no specific allegations, financial flows, or misconduct in FBI provided >190,000 victim services in FY 2011, including status updates, compensation assistance, Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) requires pre‑charging notifications and services to vic

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

To: "Paul Cassell"

From: To: "Paul Cassell" Cc: ' "Brad Edwards" Subject: : ovemments osition on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:56:28 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, 1. Yesterday, I provided you with the name and phone number for OPR Acting Associate Counsel, who received your December 10, 2010 letter to Mr. Ferrer, asking for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. 2. The government will not be making initial disclosures to plaintiffs, because we do not believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies to this matter. 3. The CVRA applies to the criminal case which has been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which may be initiated to enforce those claimed rights. We do not believe there is any right to discovery in this case. Moreover, we do not believe that whatever Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann Sanchez may have said to this office, or what this office said to Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann S

2p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.