Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-28536House OversightDeposition

Deposition excerpt on attorney-client privilege and alleged communications with David Boies regarding [REDACTED - Survivor] and Professor Dershowitz

The passage provides a limited glimpse of a deposition where counsel cites privilege and denies prior contact with high‑profile lawyer David Boies. It mentions well‑known figures (Boies, Dershowitz) b Counsel invokes attorney‑client and common‑interest privilege to block questions. Witness denies having spoken with David Boies before Dec 30 2014 about [REDACTED - Survivor]’ allegations Reference to Pro

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010844
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage provides a limited glimpse of a deposition where counsel cites privilege and denies prior contact with high‑profile lawyer David Boies. It mentions well‑known figures (Boies, Dershowitz) b Counsel invokes attorney‑client and common‑interest privilege to block questions. Witness denies having spoken with David Boies before Dec 30 2014 about [REDACTED - Survivor]’ allegations Reference to Pro

Tags

virginia-robertsdavid-boieslegal-strategyattorney-client-privilegedepositionalan-dershowitzlegal-exposureprivilege-assertionhouse-oversight

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.
00:07:28 00:07:32 60:07:32 00:07:36 00:07:38 00:07:42 00:07:46 ON Oak WD = 00:07:48 <9} 00:07:49 00:07:52 1 0 00:07:52 1 1 00:07:53 1 2 00:07:54 1 3 00:07:58 1 4 00:08:01 1 5 00:08:04 1 6 00:08:07 1 7 00:08:10 1 8 00:08:13 1 9 00:08:14 20 00:08:16 21 00:08:21 22 00:08:24 23 00:08:29 24 00:08:29 25 00:08:29 00:08:30 00:08:30 00:08:30 00:68:32 00:08:36 00:08:36 ON OOH bh OD = 00:08:37 <0} 00:08:39 oooa:aa 10 oo-osa7 11 ovneas 12 oooase 13 00.0850 14 oooes1 15 oo.0s:s2 16 00:08:52 17 oo08ss 18 oo.0ass 19 ooe-se 20 oo:09:00 24 oo0e01 22 oo0s02 23 ooosos 24 oo.os0s 25 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM 164 also going to follow Miss McCawley's instructions on not answering on behalf of -- MR. SCAROLA: Mr. Cassell will follow the instructions of [REDACTED]' counsel. It is not his privilege to waive, and he is ethically obliged to respect the direction coming from [REDACTED]’ counsel. MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I'm -- I'm simply, Mr. Scarola, making my record that the witness -- MR. SCAROLA: I understand that. MR. SIMPSON: Right. We disagree. MR. SCAROLA: I understand, but you can assume the same way I have authorized you to assume that Professor Cassell will follow my instructions, Professor Cassell will also follow all instructions concerning the assertion of attorney/client privilege expressed on the record by Miss McCawley on behalf of [REDACTED]. MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. So, Mr. Cassell, based on that, I will assume that if I ask you what you recall the discussion being at the meeting or at each of the phone calls, that you're not going to answer those questions; is that correct? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 165 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yeah, obviously not. BY MR, SIMPSON: Q. Okay. A. I mean, I have a duty to my client which I'm going to respect. Q. Allright. So we'll -- we'll take that up later with the judge. As of December 30th, 2014, had you spoken about this case with David Boies, and the question is just: Had you spoken -- MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. _-- not what the discussion was. MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. It's the common-interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm only asking if there was a discussion, no substance at all. Just, was there a discussion? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to instruct you not to answer that. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. You're taking the position that the fact of whether or not -- MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, because you're also trying to get into the timing of communications, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 60:09:68 00:09:08 00:09:14 00:09:42 00:09:15 60:09:15 00:09:15 On Oa Bh WN — 00:09:33 <0} 00:08:33 00:09:34 1 0 00:09:36 1 1 00:09:38 1 2 00:09:46 1 3 00:09:42 1 4 00:09:47 1 5 00:09:48 1 6 00:09:48 1 7 00:09:54 1 8 00:09:52 1 9 00:09:54 20 00:09:54 21 00:09:55 22 oooess 23 90:40:02 24 90:40:06 25 ooto10 1 00:10:13 2 votes §=S 00:10:17 4 60:10:20 5 90:10:20 6 90:10:22 7 60:10:23 8 00:40:23 9 00:10:24 1 0 00:10:27 1 1 00:16:29 1 2 00:40:29 1 3 oo:t0-20 14 00:10:29 1 5 60:10:29 1 6 00:10:33 1 7 00:10:33 1 8 90:10:34 1 9 90:10:36 20 00:10:44 21 00:10:42 22 00:10:44 23 00:10:44 24 00:10:45 25 Page 164 to 167 of 335 166 and all that goes into the advice that they were giving her and surrounding that advice, so I would object to that. MR. SCAROLA: Could I have the question read back? (Thereupon, a portion of the record was read by the reporter.) MS. McCAWLEY: And I would like to clarify what case as well that you're referring to. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask the question, and -- and I will note for the record that yesterday, the witness testified that the fact that Mr. Boies was representing Virginia Roberts was significant to him. So it’s sort of being used as a sword and a shield here, but I have only asked the question. I'll clarify. MR. SCAROLA: We haven't used it any way yet. MR. SIMPSON: Well, the -- the witness volunteered, Shail I put it that way? And we have a waiver. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. But, in any event, my question is: Have you spoken -- before December 30th of 2014, had you spoken with David Boies about [REDACTED]’ allegations regarding Professor Dershowitz? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 167 MR. SCAROLA: Without getting into the substance of any such discussions, you can answer that question. THE WITNESS: My recollection is no. MR. SCOTT: I think you're right on that one. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. So the answer is, no, you had not spoken with him? A. My recollection -- MR, SCAROLA: Judge Scott has issued a ruling, so -- MR. SCOTT: I wrote several opinions on that actually. MR. SCAROLA: -- we'll proceed, THE WITNESS: Let me go back -- MR, SCOTT: In the context of criminal lawyers. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to remember if I wrote any opinions on that one when I was a judge. My -- I don't recall, but -- I don’t recall. I -- my recollection is I had not personally spoken to David Boies before December 30th, 2014, BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Okay. Had you, before December 30th of 2014, ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 4 of 46 sheets

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Phone(954) 331-4400
Wire Refreferring

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

26p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

(USANYS)'

From: (USANYS)' To: " CRM" II II Cc: " (CRM)" Subject: R -: n epee ent: Prince n rew: e sa to to to Epstein investigators 'straining relations between UK and America' Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:58:39 +0000 lane-Images: image001.png Thanks, The below looks good to us. On the penalties: Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423 (transportation of minors) — maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422 (coercion and enticement) — maximum penalty is 5 years' imprisonment Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591 (sex trafficking) — maximum penalty is 40 years' imprisonment From: (CRM) Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:49 AM (USANYS) C (CRM) Subject: RE: Independent: Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators 'straining relations between UK and America' We also just got the following questions on the new MLA request. I have given preliminary responses (as noted), but want to confirm with you. I. Has the witne

4p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Jury demand filing in case 1:15-cv-07433 signed by David Boies and colleagues

The document is a routine procedural filing (jury demand) with no substantive allegations, financial details, or connections to powerful actors beyond the attorneys. It offers no investigative leads. Filed on September 21, 2015 in federal case 1:15-cv-07433 Signed by prominent attorney David Boies and other counsel from Boies Schiller & Flexner Requests a jury trial on all causes of action

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

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 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 campaig Dershow

1p
House OversightDepositionNov 11, 2025

Affidavit alleges Alan Dershowitz visited Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion during alleged sexual abuse of minors

The passage provides sworn testimony from two Epstein household employees that directly places a high‑profile attorney, Alan Dershowitz, at the Epstein residence while underage girls were present, inc Household employee Juan Alessi testified Dershowitz visited the mansion 4‑5 times a year, staying 2‑ Alessi said Dershowitz was present when [REDACTED - Survivor] was at the house and received mas

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Edward Epstein <

1p

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.