Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-20084House OversightOther

Edwards & Cassell Oppose Dershowitz Motion to Seal Defamation Records

The passage is a routine court filing arguing against sealing of documents in a defamation case. It contains no concrete allegations, financial flows, or connections to high‑level officials, and offer Dershowitz seeks to seal records he claims are confidential. Edwards and Cassell argue the presumption of openness under Florida Rule 2.420. The filing cites case law supporting public access to cour

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015622
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a routine court filing arguing against sealing of documents in a defamation case. It contains no concrete allegations, financial flows, or connections to high‑level officials, and offer Dershowitz seeks to seal records he claims are confidential. Edwards and Cassell argue the presumption of openness under Florida Rule 2.420. The filing cites case law supporting public access to cour

Tags

court-filingdefamationrecord-sealinglegal-exposurehouse-oversightflorida-law

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
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. L 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 “astrong 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 vy. 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.” Jd. 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

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.