Filing # 38774829 E-Filed 03/08/2016 07:20:19 PM

Filing # 38774829 E-Filed 03/08/2016 07:20:19 PM IN THE. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY. FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 PAUL G. CASSELL. Plaintiffs, V. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION OF NON-PARTY VIRGINIA ROBERTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Non-Party y and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Defendant's Motion to Continue Hearing and Motion to Strike Motion of Non-Party Motion for Sanctions and states as follows: MIll ROM C FION Dcrshowitz has had it his mission to publically disgrace -- who was a victim of sexual trafficking when she was a minor -- calling her, among other things, a "prostitute" and a "bad mother" during his press conferences. See Affidavit of Sigrid McCawley ("McCawIcy Affidavit") at Exhibit I, Local 10 News, January 22. 2015. Dershowitz has subpoenaed Ms. cstitnony in this matter and engaged in confidential settlement discussions with her lawyers. He then, knowingly, wrongfully and willfully, revealed those confidential settlement discussions to the New York Times for purposes of inflicting harm to character by callously misrepresenting those confidential settlement *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY. FL HOWARD FORMAN. CLERK 3/8/2016 7:20:19 PM EFTA01111154 discussions ounsel immediately filed an emergency motion with the Court asking the Court to seal the offending affidavit that he filed with this Court and that had been intentionally leaked to the press. The Court granted Ms.notion to Seal and resented ruling on her Motion to Strike and for Sanctions to allow counsel for Dershowitz time to respond. Dershowitz's counsel agreed that the matter would be heard at the Special Set Hearing on March 11, 2016. Now, just days before the special set hearing. Dershowitz has hired yet another set of new lawyers who he contends have a conflict with the March 11, 2016 date and therefore, asks the Court to cancel the Special Set Hearing. Dershowitz is clearly misstating his ability to have counsel present at this Friday's hearing because he testified that he has an attorney client relationship with over 35 lawyers. See McCawley Affidavit at Exhibit 2 (Dershowitz's Deposition Transcript at pgs. 24-42). Surely one of his able counsel can be present at the hearing on the date they specifically agreed to. See McCawley Affidavit at Exhibit 3. E-mail Correspondence confirming the March 1 l'h Special Set Hearing date. What Dershowitz is really trying to do here is find a way to stall the sanctions hearing because he knows his conduct was in clear bad faith in two ways — first by intentionally revealing and misrepresenting confidential settlement discussions to the Court. public and press, and, second, even after the Court made a finding that the discussions were confidential and scaled the affidavit, Dershowitz directly violated that order by again misrepresenting those confidential settlement discussions at his deposition. Dershowitz knows he has no valid basis to avoid being sanctioned by this Court for his flagrant bad faith litigation conduct, so he is grasping for a way to try to avoid having the motion to strike and for sanctions heard. Dershowitz's eleventh hour attempt to avoid having the sanctions motion heard is his unsupported argument that M =vho was subpoenaed by him in this case and clearly injured by his conduct, does not have standing to seek recourse for Dershowitz's wrongful 2 EFTA01111155 actions against her. This argument is a red herring and indeed Dershowitz's own counsel stated that Ms. ad standing to participate and object in this proceeding. See McCawley Affidavit at Exhibit 2 (Dershowitz Deposition at 95). Dershowitz's other argument that is equally baseless is that he contends the parties may be settling, and therefore, he is intentionally stalling this hearing in the hopes of arguing that the Court would be divested of jurisdiction to hear this issue if the parties entered a voluntary dismissal. The Court can obviously retain jurisdiction over certain matters even if the parties did submit a stipulated dismissal to this Court — but more importantly — no such dismissal has been submitted. ARGUMENT 1. Dershowitz's Is Repeatedly Engaging In Bad Faith Litigation Conduct And He Should Be Sanctioned. Mr. Dershowitz brings this motion in bad faith: it is a transparent attempt to avoid this Court's imposition of sanctions for his violation of this Court's Order and other behavior in contravention of Florida law'. By his own sworn testimony, Mr. Dershowitz is represented by 35 attorneys. lie neither alleges that they no longer represent him, nor that they are unable to represent him competently in Friday's hearing. Indeed, it would be hard to find a party with more capable or plentiful representation. Instead, he has suddenly, allegedly, decided upon new counsel on the eve of his sanctions hearing. Conveniently, neither of those attorneys are available for the March I I, 2016 Special Set Hearing that Dershowitz's other counsel agreed to. (Defendant's Motion to Continue at 2). The motion for sanctions arises, in part, over Mr. Dershowitz's flagrant violation of this Dershowitz had full opportunity to brief these issues in response to Ms. Motion to Seal and his mos otion to Strike is simply an effort to try to supplement his prior response without allowing Ms. counsel sufficient time to respond in advance of the hearing. Accordingly, to the extent the Court moves the hearing to a later date, counsel for Ms reserves her right to supplement this filing. 3 EFTA01111156 Court's Order. This Court should not countenance Mr. Dershowitz's continued flouting of this Court's authority by allowing him to avoid the hearing on sanctions based on a bad faith maneuver to delay. "A trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions on litigants for their conduct before the court," Riley v. Associates Home Equity Serve.. Inc., and this bad faith motion to avoid his hearing on the same constitutes additional grounds to grant the motion for sanctions. 850 So. 2d 661, 663 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003).2 2. Ms lHas Standing to Seek Redress for Dershowitz's Bad Faith Litigation Conduct as She is the Party Who Suffered iniury From That Conduct a. Ms. =Bias Suffered an Injury in Fact and has Standing Seek Relief from the Court for Her injuries Individuals have standing to vindicate their own legal rights. A person has standing to redress a harm when they have "more than an indirect or inconsequential interest in the case." See Sweetwater Country Club Homeowners Association Inc. v. Husker Co., 613 So.2d 936 (Fla. I' DCA finding that country club had standing to seek redress in the action where its interest in the property could be affected). Nonparties have standing if their rights are adversely affected. See In re Piper Funds, Inc., 71 F.3d 298, 301 (8th Cir.1995). See also Stoppa v. Hal Harbour VW., 385 F. App'x 932, 934 (1 1th Cir. 2010) (" A non-party has standing to challenge a judgment on certain grounds if his "rights [are] directly compromised by the final judgment."): Kern MM. Corp. v. Wilder. 817 F.2d 1517, 1521 (11th Cir.1987) ("A non-party has standing to challenge a judgment on certain grounds if his "rights fare] directly compromised by the final 2 With respect to Defendant's request for a continuance, Ms. Cs not agree to a continuance for the reasons outlined in this brief in that Ms tly believes it is simply a delay tactic being employed intentionally by Dershowitz. Ho I. v , undersigned counsel conferred with the Judge's JA, and through an administrative error, the Special Set Hearing was canallecSt) Defendant's notice and was not re-set in accordance with the Special Set Revised Notice that Msaled with the Court (McCawley Affidavit at Exhibit 4. Re-Notice of Special Set Hearing) and the Court cannot hear the matter on Friday at 10:00 am. The undersigned counsel is seeking alternative dates of the earliest possible special set time and will circulate those dates to counsel as soon as they arc provided. 4 EFTA01111157 judgment."); Dunlop v. Pan Ana. Workl Airways. Inc., 672 F.2d 1044. 1052 (2d Cir.1982) (holding a non-party must be "sufficiently connected and identified with the ... suit to entitle [him) to standing to invoke Rule 60(b)(6)"). The First Circuit has held that a non-party witness had standing to bring Rule II sanctions against a party. Jyrer v. Winterthur International, 290 F.3d 456, 460 (1" Cir. 2002). As in Nyer, there is no one situated in these proceedings to vindicate Ms rights except for herself, the person who was injured. Indeed, Mr. Dershowitz names no other person with standing who could seek redress for her injuries, and therefore. his standing argument is merely an attempt to violate her rights with impunity. M I Ms as been injured in this action and she is entitled to seek sanctions against Dershowitz for his conduct. CI: Nixon v. Warner Commcins. Inc., 435 U.S. 589. 599, 98 S. Ct. 1306. 1313, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978) ("allegations of further embarrassment . . . and additional exploitation of materials originally thought to be confidential establish injury in fact that would be redressed by a favorable decision of his claim."). By extension, NMas standing in seeking redress for publication of her attornev's statements that were made during confidential settlement discussions. Ms.Mills suffered injury in fact when Mr. Dershowitz published and misrepresented her confidential settlement negotiations, and she, therefore, has standing to vindicate her rights. b. As a Witnesses in This Case Ms Has Standing to Seek Relief from the Court for Injuries She Has Su ere Witnesses have standing to seek redress with the Court for injuries they suffer. See Adamson-.lames v. Florida Dept ofrorn, No. 6:11-CV-628-ORL-35TB, 2013 WL 1703541, at *2 (M.D. Ha. Mar. 22, 2013) report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:11-CV-628-ORL-36, 2013 WL 1703520 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2013) (holding that "[ilf there was evidence that 5 EFTA01111158 Defendants were intimidating witnesses then those witnesses would have to seek the protection of the Court."). citing Refoule v. Ellis, 74 F.Supp. 336, 343 (N.D.Ga.1947) ("If [the witnesses'] civil rights have been violated, they may institute proper proceedings to protect themselves, but such rights are not personal to plaintiff."). See also Foster v. Pall Aeropower Corp., I 1 1 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1322-23 (M.D. Fla. 2000) ("The Eleventh Circuit has permitted witnesses to pursue claims pursuant to the second clause of section 1985(2)"). In Westmoreland v CBS, Inc. 770 F.2d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 1985), a nonparty witness sought redress for defense counsel's failed contempt proceedings against him. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against the party based upon the nonparty witness's motion. Similarly, here. Mr. Dershowitz brought Ms into this action by issuance of his subpoena. Mr. Dershowitz violated her rights and injured her by revealing, and then miseharacterizing, confidential settlement discussions to the public, in contravention of this Court's Order. Mr. Dershowitz has caused Ms.a) starer an injury to her rights through these proceedings, and therefore may seek sanctions against Mr. Dershowitz. Both common sense and the law dictate that Ms can seek redress from this Court for her injuries. c. As an Affected Non art Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Ms has Standing to Seek Redress for Her Injuries Dershowitz lists a lot of things that Ms. c not, but fails to light upon what she is. Under the Rule 2.420(b), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. Ms=s an "affected non-party," as she is "a non-party identified by name in a Court record that contains confidential information pertaining to that non-party." This Court established her identity as such when ruled on her motion to make her deposition testimony sealed and confidential pursuant to Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. "Affected non-parties" have rights in the 6 EFTA01111159 „A< c# c# er# st <Q44 legal proceedings in which their information is involved" Rule 2.420(d)(2)(A).3 Indeed, the 4e Florida Rules of Judicial Administration endow "affected nonparties" with a number of rights, st, and nothing in these Rules at all indicates that an affected non-party would not have standing to seek sanctions when a party willfully violates the confidentiality and protections these Rules ' a %cis.. t ., were designed to provide. Such an argument is contrary to public policy. 44( Comparably, under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a nonparty to a judicial aOS 4 .3 %Stproceeding has standing to challenge the release of discovery materials related to the proceeding. ' Times Pub. Co. v. State, 903 So. 2d 322, 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005), Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220. Similarly, this Court should find that a nonparty in a civil case has standing to challenge the si release of confidential settlement negotiations, particularly in this case, when those materials N.4 4 contain evidence of sexual crimes committed against her as a minor child. Allowing the release of this type of sensitive information related to an affected non-party victim of a crime to go unchallenged undermines the purpose of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220. d. Mr. Dershowitz's Arguments Fail 4 N-4 Unsurprisingly, Dershowitz has cited to no case in any jurisdiction where a court has found that an affected nonparty, or a nonparty witness, does not have standing to seek redress for injury they directly suffered by a party's conduct. This Court has already adjudicated Ms. rivacy rights in this case when it ordered her testimony about the sexual abuse she suffered as a minor child to be scaled under Rule 2.420, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., and found Ms. 4 3 "For example, affected non-parties have standing to file a Notice of Confidential Information within C'ourt Filing if the document was not initially filed in that manner." Rule 2.4200)(2)(M. 4 4,c, st, if party moves to affect the confidentiality of an affected non-party, they must serve the affected non- party with notice of any such motions that would affect their confidential information. See 2.420 (d)(4). (05). 4 Similarly. parties cannot make an oral motion to determine the confidentiality of trial court records unless "affected non-panics" arc present or properly noticed. Rule 2.420 (h00 )(8). ' .\ 4 ,...„.S...C"S‘ , ....c:4(S4 `. N4 N4 ‘.. .st‘‘ r N4 N4 7 N4 N4 4r S 4 st 4 # 4‘- 1/4 4 c # ,s,, # ,,Ns,, t ‹P te ,,,,,,,<> # 4 ,,„,)<,§.'‘A . 04 ,,„,).4.'‘-k 4+4 ,,,,,,,..i EFTA01111160 settlement negotiations to be confidential. See McCawley Affidavit at Exhibit 5, December 18. 2015, Emergency Motion to Seal Hr. Tr. at 23:11-25:8. It is this non-party, Ms. who suffered injury in tact when Mr. Dershowitz intentionally, willfiilly and wrongfully disclosed confidential settlement discussions, and, therefore, she has standing to seek redress. CONCLUSION WHEREFOREME espeetfully requests that this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Continue Hearing and Deny His Motion to Strike Non-Part Motion for Sanctions. Dated: March 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted, BOIES, $CHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, SUite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 By: /s/Sigrid S. McCawlev Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Florida Bar No. 129305 Attomey. for Non-Party [REDACTED] 8 EFTA01111161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \‘'" I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 8, 2016, a true amfeorrect copy dtthe foregoingP was served bitlectronic Mail to the individuals identified bow. By: /s/Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Thomas E. Scott im ra teven . a IIIIIIIIMM. A. 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33156 Counsel for Alan Dershowitz Richar A. Sim son • _ WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for Alan Dershowitz Charles H. Lichtman, Esq. Bruce S. Rogow, Esq. BERGER SINGERMAN LLP' BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A. ---" 350 E. Las Olas Blvd. 100 NE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1000 Suite 1000 Fort auderdale FL 33301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: Counsellor Alan Dershowitz Kenneth A. Sweder, Esq. Jack Scarola SWEDER & ROSS, LLP SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART 131 Oliver Street & SHIPLEY, P.A. Boston, MA 02110 iIIIIIIIes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409-6601 Counsel for Alan Dershowitz 7 Attorney for Plaintiffs e , •W rzce -6:14a‘ -.\S> „...s. NI;j-`• .-1.' e. c. ,s.. , A<>., -..i ccS:t ccS:t O • A. CO A <55‘ t OO4 -Ct c.) ie ie i't,"( EFTA01111162 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs. v. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. ' ' 16121D S. NIcCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION NTINUE AND MOTION TO 1, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, as follows: 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner la and duly licensed to practice in Florida. 2. I respectfully submit this Affidavit in support Opposition to Defendant Alan Dershowitz's Motion to Continue and Motion to Strike. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit I, is a true and correct copy of the January 22, 2015 Local 10 News Article. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the October 15, 2015 Deposition of Alan Dershowitz. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the February 16, 2016 Email Correspondence from to/from Sigrid McCawley. EFTA01111163 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the Re-Notice of Special Set llearing for March 11, 2016. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from the December 18, 2015 11 caring Transcript. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. igrid McC wley. Esq. 2 EFTA01111164 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF BROWARD ) SWORN TO and subscribed belbre me this 8th day of March, 2016, by SIGRID S. McCAWLEY who Vis personally known to me or who produced as identification. Notary Public, State of Florida rh N 4,1 Printed Name ...saabarayamairibamesee MARTHA R06943074 „1O11,4% sy Notify Public - Stale of Rends • E My Comm. Expires Sep it 2016 a • :•fe, " 1 Commission 0 EE 629676 f•1,1:::P. Bonded Thfoup Mileonli NOlaty Mtn s'errierrirrinn an 3 EFTA01111165 EXHIBIT 1 4. ao ao <,* • OpQ COQ sit it • sit sz..., ‘.z- NI I s, I -Ct I ,c,:t .4k • sz,,, ccpQJ sit ..., a0 a0 sit ..., -4, c" ..., • -4, c" ..., • -4, c" ..., s) 4. -s. 4* c e ,s,% e ..,:t 4 \ c..) 4. ..s, cs* co N co N co EFTA01111166 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute I News - Home Page I of 3 Local .com Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute Famed attorney slams woman who claims he had underaged sex with her Author: Bob Norman, Reporter, hnorman@ Local to.com Published On: Jan 22 2015 06:03:14 PM EST Updated On: Jan 22 2015 06:20:00 PM EST PEMBROKE PARK, Fla. - Well-known attorney and Miami Beach resident Alan Dershowitz emphatically denied allegations made i❑ newly!fited court papers th at he had sex six times with an underage girl who at the time was serving as a "sex slave" for wealthy financier -- and convicted sex offender -- Jeffrey Epstein. Related: Billion aitel.; tt:ex slave'. details allegations against Prince Andrew, Dershowitz "This is a woman who is a serial liar," Dershowitz told Local to News reporter Bob Norma "She's lied, lied, lied, lied." "But she wasn't lying about being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein," said Norman. "That is a different issue," said Dershowitz. "That is between her and Jeffrey Epstein." http://www.Iocal 0.comMewsialan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 211912015 EFTA01111167 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute News - Home Page 2 of 3 The woman is ne of as many as 40 women who allege that Epstein recruited them while they were minors into a sex ring based at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. alleges in a 14-page affidavit -- which included newly-released photos she said were taken by Epstein when she was is -- that Epstein groomed her as "sex slave" to gratify not only him but his powerful friends. She wrote that she was introduced to Epstein at the mansion by heiress Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late British publisher Robert Maxwell, on the pretext that she would be paid to give him a "massage," which she wrote was Epstein's "code word for sexual encounters." "From the r I was taken to Epstein's mansion that day, his motivations and actions were sexual, as were Maxwell's," writes in the affidavit. "My father was not allowed inside. I was brought up some stairs. There was a na guy, Epstein, on the table in the room. Epstein and Maxwell forced me into sexual activity with Epstein ... I was paid Szoo." She wrote that she then began working for Epstein, and traveling around the country and world with him. "Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trained me to do what they wanted, including sexual activities and the use of sexual toys," she wrote. 'The training was in New York and Florida at Epstein's mansions. It was basically every day and was like going to school... i was trained to be 'Everything a man wanted me to be.' It wasn't just sexual training -- they wanted me lobe able to cater to all the needs of the men they were going to send to me." In the affidavit, she alleges that Dershowitz was one of those men and that she had sex with him six times beginning when she was 16 at Epstein's residences, as well as on his jet and private island. She also added details about her allegations that Epstein -- who served 13 months in jail after being convicted of soliciting a minor for sex in 2008 -- ordered her to have sex on three occasions with Prince Andrew in London at the age of ty, paying her St5,000 after the first instance. Reacl the entire 14-page affidavit here. Dershowitz said her three children. was a prostitute and questioned whether she is now, at the age of 31, a fit mother for "She's now an admitted prostitute," said Dershowitz. "I can tell you she is still a prostitute: she is selling these false stories now for money about me. That is a form of prostitution." "Do you have any concern calling her a prostitute when she was victimized at such an early age by a wealthy man?" Norman asked. "She was not victimized ... she made her own decisions in life," said Dershowitz. "But at the age of 15 some would say ... she was taken advantage of," said Norman. "I'm talking about the age of 19," said Dershowitz. "But it started when she was 15," said Norman. "I am not invoked in that," he said. "I have no knowledge of that. That's between her, and the federal government and the people who victimized her. All I know is she has victimized me. At the age of 31 she has made up false allegations against me. She is a mother of three children, and she is now living a lie to her three children and the question is whether she is an adequate mother of her three children going around selling her false stories of prostitution." Dershowitz is an admitted long-time friend of Epstein's who frequented his homes at the time= and other young girls were in Epstein's employ. But he insisted he never saw an underage girl in Epstein's company. A former Epstein employee, the late Alfredo Rodriguez, testified under oath that Dershowitz was at the Palm Beach mansion at the same time underage girls were at the home. http://www.local10.com/ncws/alan-dershowitz-sex -slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 EFTA01111168 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute News - Horne Page 3 of 3 "That's not true," said Dershowitz. was never in Jeffrey Epstein's house or any of the houses in the presence of any young woman. Now were there other young women in other parts of the house giving massages when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. I can only say I never sew a young underage woman. If I had 1 would have left the house and never come back, period? He told Norman that he had one massage at Epstein's home and it was with an adult woman. "I kept my underwear on during the massage," lie said. "I don't like massages particularly." One of the more salacious allegations made by is that Dershowitz "was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat wit Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein." Dershowitz called that allegation absurd. "Alan Dershowitz was standing there and talking about what? The weather, the stock market? It's the most preposterous thing imaginable," said Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who has issued a denial t basic claims in a sworn affidavit of his own, said he would willingly be deposed on the matter. attorneys have claimed that Dershowitz has refused to submit to deposition. When questioned about it, Dershowitz said he would be deposed in the case, but only after nd her two lawyers are deposed. The lawyers have sued Dershowitz for defamation after he alleged they should be disbarred for initially putting allegations in court papers. "I am happy today to express my willingness to be deposed after the three of them are deposed," he said. "That's the order it should occur because they are the accusers. I am the one who is defending myself against their accusations? Follow Local to News on Twitter tiypt.GLocaito Copyright 2015 by Localto.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 2015 O 2015 hup://www.local10.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/l 9/20 IS EFTA01111169 s., AN• ••' 4 ..ks.O ''' CO\ . . k , 4 *, 9 s., 4 S., 4 S., 4 \ S., ' ,i'.. s `::i'S' 4 \ . . k , 4 0 4 \ 4 <,* 4, # 4 # # 4 # 4 \ 4 # S., S.,4 ' \ # 4 # 4s'. . ,. [repeated 5 times] • • X. [repeated 3 times] , • X. • X. 4 ' 4, # s., # s., # s., ..,:tg.' 4 \ ..,:t:,‹ 4 \ ..,:t:,‹ ,,4\ ,c!:,‹ • 01',, • •ci,, • •ci,, •ci,, - 4.- •ci,, - 4.- •ci,, •ci,, ,,w - •ci,, 4 \ s., s., 4\ X044 [repeated 7 times] 044 4\ <<, ' 544\ 'EXHIBIT 2 C> 4 \ <:,‹ 4 \ <:,‹ 4" • \ • \ `" '''- `.) <‹. [repeated 6 times] <‹. N ,A‘.. 4' [repeated 5 times] ,a.r <., <., s., 4* [repeated 5 times] s., 4' ,:i'z- [repeated 8 times] 4 \ ..‹t:,<. 4 \ ,t;,‹ [repeated 5 times] ."' k • • ,,, 0 s> 0 CO ' CO ' CO ' CO< -,:t CO< N N •:. 'k- •:. 4" • [repeated 5 times] 4 ,. ,s,-4 [repeated 5 times] 44\0,s,t0- , sV - 4.,0- CO - 4.,0- CO - 4.,0- CO - 0- [repeated 3 times] CO , 4" • [repeated 5 times] <., <.,1,4' s., 44- [repeated 5 times] s., 4' ..,ok CO4- ..„ok CO - ..„ok CO - ..,,,,<. CO - ,t,‹ 4" ,t,‹ 4" ,t‹. # ,t‹. CO ‘,* • • \ , .) \ , s.) lc' .:>, 4" • c'f <., <., s., 44s., 44s.,* s., 44s., 4' , • :' z <> ..,,o CO, o <44- , t,<. 4" , t,<. 4" ,t‹. # ,t‹. # k §' §-\ k §-\ k 4, . ,,. . ,,. ,,. ,,:t, <:› , 4' 4" • [repeated 5 times] 4" ..,, , N.. c:›§k 044 EFTA01111170 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 N. 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 a Kissane 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Stenographically Reported By: Kimberly Fontalvo, RPR, CLR Realtime Systems Administrator EFTA01111171 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of Plaintiffs: 3 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA 4 BARNHART 4 SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3626 SQ. 6 7 8 On behalf of Defendant: 9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II - Suite 1400 10 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 11 BY:aTHOMAS EMERSON SCOTT, JR., ESQ. 12 B : :SAE E . (Via phone) 14 SWEDER 4 ROSS, LLP 131 Oliver Street 15 Boston, MA 02110 BY: KENNETH A. SWEDER ESQ. 16 13 --an 17 --an 18 WILEY, REIN 17769 K Street NW 19 Washington, DC 20006 BY: RICHARD A. SIMPSON, ESQ. 20 [email protected] BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ. 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01111172 3 APPEARANCES ;Continued): 2 3 On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 4 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 S Boston, MA 02116 BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG. ESQ. (Via phone) 6 7 --an DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. 9 New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) 10 11 On behalf of [REDACTED]: 12 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200 13 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 BY: SIGRID STONE MCCAWLEY, ESQ. 14 15 16 ALSO PRESENT: 17 Joni Jones, Utah Attorney General Office 18 Travis Gallagher, Videographer 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EFTA01111173 24 1 relieved any symptoms of atrial fibrillation or 2 atrial flutter, until they recurred -- until it 3 recurred about a month or maybe it's a month and a 4 half now. 1 can give you the exact dates. Because, 5 as I say, I have it on my -- on my machine. 6 Q. When did the atrial flutter occur? 09:54:16 7 A. I told you that I don't have the exact 09:54:20 8 date, but it occurred about a month, month and a 9 half ago, I think sometime in August of this year. 10 But I can give you the exact date. As I said, I 11 have it on my machine. 12 Q. So, what you have described as a 09:54:33 13 recurrence of atrial fibrillation you are now 14 describing as an atrial flutter? 15 A. You're confused, sir. Please listen to my 09:54:42 16 answers. What I've said was that I had atrial 17 flutter. Atrial flutter occurred after my initial 18 atrial fib. I then had an ablation. The flutter 19 and the fib both disappeared after the ablation. 20 And my atrial fib has returned. 21 Q. Given your superb memory, would you please 09:55:13 22 name for us each of the lawyers who has represented 23 you in this case? 24 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 09:55:22 25 Argumentative. EFTA01111174 25 1 if you need a document or anything to 09:55:29 2 refresh your memory, please let us know. 3 A. Well, I'll start with the names of my 09:55:34 4 lawyers. I've been represented by Judge Scott and 5 his law firm, including several associates and 6 paralegals. I don't know their status, whether 7 they're partners, associates or paralegals, but I've B had contact with them. 9 I have been represented by Mr. Simpson's 09:55:54 10 law firm, including several partners, associates, 11 and paralegals. I've been represented by Kenneth 12 Sweder and presumably some of his partners and 13 associates. 14 I've been represented by Kendall Coffey 09:56:15 15 and several of his associates and partners. I would 16 say those are my main lawyers. But I've also had 17 others. 18 I have sought the legal advice of Mark 09:56:34 19 Fabiani, who was my former research assistant at 20 Harvard. I've sought the advice of Mitchell Webber, 21 who was my former research assistant at Harvard. 22 I was offered legal advice by Carlos 09:56:52 23 Sires, who was -- who is a partner in the Boise firm 24 who -- who volunteered to represent me along with 25 one of his partners, but then withdraw from the EFTA01111175 26 1 representation when he discovered that I had a 2 conflict of Interest. 3 I've had consultations with a variety of 09:57:18 4 other lawyers over particular issues in the case, 5 Floyd Abrams, who is probably the leading lawyer in 6 the world on First Amendment, has advised me on my 7 First Amendment rights to have said what I said 8 truthfully and expressed my opinion about your 9 clients. 10 I mean, that's the very beginning. But 09:57:52 11 when the events first occurred, I got calls from 12 dozens of lawyers outraged by the unethical conduct 13 of your clients and offering to represent me 14 pro bono, offering to do anything they could to see 15 that these lawyers were appropriately punished and 16 disciplined. 17 David Markus, for example, of the Miami 09:58:17 18 Bar called and keeps calling asking if there's 19 anything he can do to help me. 20 There's a lawyer in Broward named Diner, 09:58:28 21 who has offered to represent me. It goes on and on 22 and on. The offers are still coming in. People are 23 just absolutely outraged by the unprofessional and 24 unethical conduct of your clients and are offering 25 to help me right a wrong and undo an injustice. EFTA01111176 27 1 MR. SCOTT: Just hold it. Somebody's 2 making noise on the phone and it's causing a 3 little disruption here. So, you know, I'm not 09:59t00 4 sure who it is, one of you-all on the phone. 5 Thanks. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:16 7 Q. Mr. Scott is obviously still representing 09:59:21 8 you now; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 09:59:24 10 Q. Richard Simpson is still representing you 09:59:25 11 now; is that correct? 12 A. That's correct. 09:59:27 13 Q. Ken Sweder is representing you now; is 09:59:28 14 that correct? 15 A. That's correct, yes. 09:59:30 16 Q. Is Kendall Coffey representing you now? 09:59:30 17 A. Yes. 09:59:33 18 Q. Is Mark Fabiani representing you now? 09:59:35 19 A. Yes. 09:59:37 20 Q. And when I ask "are they representing you 09:59:38 21 now," they're representing you now in this 22 litigation; is that correct? 23 MR. SCOTT: I don't think that -- 09:59:45 24 objection, form. I don't think that was 25 specified. EFTA01111177 28 1 MR. SCAROLA: Well, that's why I'm asking. 09:59:48 2 MR. SCOTT: As opposed to general advice. 09:59:50 3 A. Yes. Yes. 09:59:52 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 09:59:53 5 Q. And Mark Fabiant is representing you with 09:59:53 6 regard to this litigation; is that correct? 7 A. Yes, yes. 09:59:57 8 Q. Floyd Abrams is representing you now with 09:59:58 9 regard to this litigation; is that correct? 10 A. Yes. 10:00:01 11 Q. Mitch Webber is representing you now with 10:00:02 12 regard to this litigation; is that correct? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 10:00:C6 14 Q. Is Steven Safra representing you with 10:00:11 15 regard to this litigation? 16 A. Yes. 10:00:15 17 Q. Is Mary Borja representing you now with 10:00:15 18 regard to this litigation? 19 A. Yes. 10:00:19 20 Q. Is Ashley Eller representing you now with 10:00:20 21 regard to this litigation? 22 A. That's not a name that immediately comes 10:00:24 23 to my head, but I believe it's an associate in one 24 of the law firms. I don't know the names of all the 25 lawyers who are doing the background work on the EFTA01111178 29 1 case for the law firms. 2 Q. Is Nicole Richardson representing you now 10:00:37 3 with regard to this litigation? 4 A. Again, yes, yes. 10:00:41 5 Q. Is Gabe Groisman representing you now with 10:00:46 6 regard to this litigation? 7 A. Yes. 10:00:49 8 Q. Is Ben Brodsky representing you now with 10:00:51 9 regard to this litigation? 10 A. Ben Brodsky? I would have to check on 10:00:59 11 that. 12 Q. Is Sarah Neely representing you now with 10:01:06 13 regard to this litigation? 14 A. Sarah Neely has been my assistant and 10:01:09 15 paralegal for the last some years and I have used 16 her to perform paralegal work for me in this 17 litigation. 18 Q. Is Nicholas Maisel representing you now 10:01:27 19 with regard to this litigation? 20 A. Nicholas Maisel is my research assistant 10:01:31 21 and paralegal on this litigation, yes. 22 Q. Is your wife representing you with regard 10:01:39 23 to this litigation? 24 A. My wife has been instrumental in helping 10:01:42 25 me gather all the records and information. She EFTA01111179 30 1 knows more about records and where my records are 2 kept and I've asked her to perform paralegal service 3 in addition to her loving service as my wife. 4 Q. Is Harvey Silverglate representing you now 10:02:04 5 with regard to this litigation? 6 A. Yes. 10:02:08 7 Q. Is Mark rabiani representing you now with 10:02:09 8 regard to this litigation? 9 A. You've asked me that question and the 10:02:12 10 answer is -- 11 Q. No, I asked you, sir, if he was your 10:02:14 12 lawyer; but I haven't asked you whether he's 13 representing you now with regard to this litigation. 14 A. The answer is yes. 10:02:20 15 Q. Is Floyd Abrams representing you now with 10:02:22 16 regard to this litigation? 17 A. Yes. 10:02:25 18 Q. Is Jamin Dershowitz representing you now 10:02:26 19 with regard to this litigation? 20 A. Yes. 10:02:30 21 Q. Is Nancy Gertner representing you now with 10:02:32 22 regard to this litigation? 23 A. That requires a lengthier answer, if you 10:02:36 24 will permit me. 25 Q. I haven't stopped you yet. 10:02:41 EFTA01111180 31 1 A. You've tried. 10:02:43 2 Q. Much as I may have liked to. 10:02:44 3 A. You've tried. 10:02:45 4 MR. SCOTT: Scarola, that's probably 10:02:47 5 one of the few times you and I agree on 6 something. 7 MR. SCAROLA: No, we've agreed on a lot, 10:02:52 8 Tom. 9 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we -- I'm kidding you. 10:02:55 10 I'm kidding you. 11 MR. SCAROLA: I know you are. 10:02:57 12 A. Nancy Gertner is one of the attorneys who 10:02:58 13 called me immediately and expressed outrage at what 14 was happening to me and offered to help me. 15 Initially she wanted to help me by calling your 16 client, Professor Cassell, and explaining to him 17 that what I've been accused of could not possibly 18 have happened and there must have been a mistake or 19 something. And clearly she had confused me with 20 someone else. 21 And as I understand it, Nancy Gertner made 10:03:29 22 that phone call to your client, Professor Cassell, 23 and Professor Cassell reiterated his false 24 accusation against me. 25 Thereafter, Nancy Gertner volunteered to 10:03:42 EFTA01111181 32 1 2 become part of my legal team and to examine some of the witnesses in this case. 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:03:55 4 Q. Did you ever accept that offer from Nancy 10:03:56 5 Gertner 6 A. Yes. 10:03:59 7 Q. -- so as to establish$n attorney-client 10:03:59 8 relationship with -- 9 A. Yes. 10:04:04 10 Q. So she is one of your lawyers -- 10:04:04 11 A. She is currently -- I regard her currently 10:04:05 12 as one of my lawyers, yes. 13 Q. And is Mitch Webber one of your lawyers in 10:04:08 14 this case? 15 A. Yes. 10:04:11 16 Q. But if I just give you a name without 10:04:12 17 18 repeating the second part, "is that one of the lawyers in your case," will you understand -- 19 A. I understand. 10:04:21 20 Q. -- that I'm asking you with regard to 10:04:22 21 22 these -a lawyer each of these individuals whether they are representing you in this case? 23 A. Yes. 10:04:30 24 Q. Okay. Anthony Julius? 10:04:30 25 A. Anthony Julius is a British barrister and 10:04:35 EFTA01111182 33 1 solicitor who I conferred with regarding the 2 possibility of filing lawsuits against your clients 3 in Great Britain. I continue to confer with him on 4 matters relating to defamation. 5 Q. So you consider him to be one of your 10:04:54 6 lawyers representing you with regard to matters 7 relating to this lawsuit? 8 A. I'll stand by -- 10:05:00 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:05:01 10 A. -- my answer. I'll stand by my answer. 10:05:02 11 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:05:04 12 Q. Charles Ogletree? 10:05:05 13 A. Charles Ogletree is a close personal 10:05:06 14 friend and colleague at the Harvard Law School with 15 whom I have conferred about this case. I always 16 have regarded him as a personal attorney and 17 continue to confer with him about this case and the 18 general picture. So, I do regard him as one of my 19 lawyers in this litigation, yes. I certainly regard 20 him as having been given privileged information as 21 part of a lawyer-client privilege, yes. 22 Q. There -- there may be a time when I need 10:05:47 23 more than just an answer to the question that I'm 24 asking as to whether these individuals are or are 25 not your lawyers in this case. That's not now. EFTA01111183 34 So if you would, please, I would 2 appreciate it if you would tell me only whether these individuals are or are not your lawyers in 10:06:01 this case. A I'm sorry, but I cannot comply with that. 10:06:09 6 I'm -- 7 Q. Well, you can but you refuse to. 10:06:12 8 MR. SCOTT: Let's not interrupt him. 10:06:14 9 A. Let me complete my answer, please. 10:06:16 10 MR. SCOTT: It doesn't help the court 10:06:17 11 reporter or the record. 12 A. I've been teaching legal ethics for close 10:06:19 13 to 40 years. I understand the complexity of the 14 lawyer-client relationship. And it's impossible as 15 to some of the names you've mentioned to simply give 16 a yes or no answer to whether they are representing 17 me in this case. 18 What I can do is give you the facts and 10:06:39 19 then you and others can draw legal conclusions from 20 those facts. But I -- I cannot, under my oath to 21 tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 22 truth, respond to questions with yes or no answers 23 when those questions do not call for simplistic yes 24 or no answers. 25 EFTA01111184 :35 1 BY MR. SCAR0LA: 10:07:01 2 Q. Is Philip Heymann a lawyer representing 10:07:01 3 you in this case? 4 A. I have conferred with Philip Heymann on 10:07:04 5 several occasions about several aspects of this case 6 and I regard him, for purposes of lawyer-client 7 privilege, as one of my lawyers on this case. 8 Q. David Oscar Markus, same question? 10:07:18 9 MR. SCOTT: We covered him, didn't we? 10:07:22 10 A. David Oscar Markus is a former student and 10:07:23 11 research assistant of mine. Lives in Miami and 12 practices law. And he has repeatedly called and 13 offered me legal representation. Has offered to 14 help me in the legal context of this case. And I've 15 conferred with him on lawyer-client confidential 16 basis about this case on several occasion. 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10:07:49 18 Q. Thomas Wiegand? 10:07:49 19 A. Thomas Wiegand is a litigator in Chicago 10:07:51 20 with whom I worked along with Carlos Sires and 21 Sigrid McCawley on the Guma Aguiar case in Florida. 22 And as soon as this case occurred, Thomas Wiegand 23 was one of those lawyers who called and offered to 24 represent me and do whatever he could to help undo 25 the injustice that had been perpetrated on me by EFTA01111185 36 1 your clients' false and mendacious allegations 2 regarding me and [REDACTED]. 3 Q. Jeanne Baker? 10:08:30 4 A. Jeanne Baker is a long-term associate, 10:08:32 5 legal associate and friend who also called and 6 offered me legal help, legal representation, and I 7 continue to confer with her on a privileged basis. 8 Q. Rick Pildes? 10:08:51 9 A. Rick Pildes is a professor at New York 10:08:53 10 University law school and I sought his legal advice 11 on a particular issue in this case. And continue to 12 seek his legal advice. 13 Q. Susan Rosen? 10:09:03 14 A. Susan Rosen is a prominent lawyer in 10:09:04 15 Charleston, South Carolina and a cousin of my 16 wife's. And she has offered me legal advice about 17 this case as recently as two days ago. 18 Q. Alex MacDonald? 10:09:24 19 A. Alex MacDonald is my personal lawyer in 10:09:25 20 several instances in Massachusetts and he has 21 offered me advice and consultation on this case, 22 again volunteering in an effort to undo the horrible 23 injustice that was done to me by your clients' 24 mendacious willful and unprofessional conduct and 25 leveling of false charges, sexual misconduct against EFTA01111186 37 1 me at a time when they knew it wasn't true and 2 seeking to repeat that charge after they knew that 3 it was impossible that I could have engaged in any 4 of the 5 Q. 6 7 school and also the wife of Steven Gillers and she, 8 along with Steven Gillers, have advised me and 9 conferred with me about the legal ethics aspects of 10 this case. 11 So you consider her to be one of your 12 lawyers in this case, is that 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 as having come within the lawyer-client privilege. 20 We've conferred on a number of occasions about the 21 ethical misconduct of your clients, 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 23 Q. Rana Dershowitz? 24 A. Rana Dershowitz is my niece and Harvard 25 law school graduate, former chief counsel for the conduct that they have accused me of. Barbara Gillers? A. Barbara Gillers is at professor at NYU law A. i can -- MR. SCOTT: Object to the form. Go ahead. 10:10:23 Let me make an objection. I know you're just 10:10:05 10:10:06 10:10:19 10:10:22 trying to answer, but go ahead, you can answer, sir. A. Sorry. I regard my conversations with her 10:10:29 10:10:43 10:10:43 10:10:45 EFTA01111187 36 1 U.S. Olympic Committee and a prominent lawyer in 2 Colorado. And I've conferred with her on numerous 3 occasions about litigation and strategy and aspects 4 of this case. 5 Q. Ella Dershowitz? 10:11:05 6 A. Ella Dershowitz is my daughter and she has 10:11:06 7 served as a paralegal helping me gather material. I 8 don't think I regard her -- I certainly don't regard 9 her as a lawyer in the case. But I regard her as 10 somebody who has been a part of our kind of legal 11 team. 12 Q. Ellen Dershowitz? 10:11:29 13 A. Ellen -- 10:11:32 14 Q. Elon? 10:11:33 15 A. Elon Dershowitz is my oldest son, child, 10:11:34 16 and he has served repeatedly in a paralegal capacity 17 in this case helping me to gather information and 18 evidence and doing some investigative work for me. 19 Q. Nathan Dershowitz? 10:11:52 20 A. Nathan Dershowitz is my brother. He's a 10:11:52 21 distinguished attorney in New York, had his own law 22 firm. And he and I did a lot of our legal cases 23 together and as soon as this case emerged, I 24 conferred with him and have conferred with him on 25 numerous occasions about this case. EFTA01111188 39 1 Q. You consider him to be one of your lawyers 10:12:14 2 in this case? 3 A. Yes. 10:12:16 4 Q. Ben Brafman? 10:12:17 5 A. Ben Brafman is one of the leading criminal 10:12:19 6 lawyers and general lawyers in the City of New York? 7 He has volunteered to help me in any way he could in 8 this case and we have conferred and I have sought 9 legal advice from him in this -- in this matter. 10 Q. Arthur Aidala? 10:12:36 11 A. Arthur Aidala is a distinguished member of 10:12:38 12 the who's president of the Brooklyn Bar Association 13 and a former district attorney in Brooklyn. He has 14 volunteered to help me. He was outraged at the 15 unethical behavior of your clients and has sought 16 the opportunity to do everything in his power to try 17 to undo the injustice perpetrated on me by your 18 clients' mendacious and false and unethical 19 allegations against me, and I continue to confer 20 with him. 21 Q. David Zornow? 10:13:15 22 A. David Zornow is the senior litigating 10:13:17 23 partner at Skadden Arps in New York. He has offered 24 to assist me in this matter and I've conferred with 25 him and sought his legal advice. EFTA01111189 40 1 Q. Charles Johnson? 10:13:31 2 A. Charles Johnson is my former research 10:13:32 3 assistant and paralegal. I think we've taken his 4 name off the list of lawyers because he now, I 5 think, performs more of a journalistic job than a 6 legal one, though he has offered to help me gather information on your clients. 8 Q. When did you cease considering Charles 10:14:02 9 Johnson to be your lawyer with regard to matters 10 relating to this case? 11 A. After a conference with my attorneys in 10:14:10 12 Washington, D.C. about ten days ago or so. We went 13 through the list and that was one that I said was 14 too close a question and I would regard him more as 15 a blogger and a journalist than as a lawyer. But 16 it's a close question. 17 Q. David Efron? 10:14:32 18 A. David Efron is a prominent lawyer in 10:14:33 19 Miami, Florida and Puerto Rico. He was one, who 20 called me immediately and offered his assistance, 21 the assistance of his law firm. I've conferred with 22 him repeatedly about this case. 23 Q. In an attorney-client capacity; is that 10:14:54 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. 10:14:57 EFTA01111190 43 1 Q. Ashe? 10:14:57 2 A. Thomas Ashe is not a lawyer. He was one 10:14:58 3 of the first people I called on the day I was 4 informed of the lies being spread by your clients. 5 Because he could help me gather all the information 6 necessary to prove that the only time I was ever in 7 New Mexico was visiting him and his wife, who is a 8 prominent film person, and his daughter, who is a 9 sex offender prosecutor in the Brooklyn District 10 Attorney's Office who specializes in sex 11 trafficking. 12 I needed to call them to prove what I knew 10:15:49 13 immediately, that the only time I was ever at 14 Jeffrey Epstein's ranch was when I went to visit the 15 Ashes in New Mexico. I spoke to their daughter, the 16 prosecutor's, class. She was then in high school, 17 and took a day trip to Santa Fe. 18 Ashe had known -- had heard that Jeffrey 10:16:15 19 Epstein had bought a ranch, a very large ranch in 20 New Mexico and Ashe was very interested in the 21 outdoors and asked me if I would do him a favor and 22 call to see if we could just take a look at what the 23 ranch looked like. And I did that. 24 And we spent about an hour looking around 10:16:35 25 the house that was under construction. And I needed EFTA01111191 42 1 Ashe to gather all the evidence for me, including 2 journal entries in his daughter's journal, 3 photographs, other evidence and proof of our visit 4 to the ranch, which your client encouraged Virginia 5 Roberts to include in an affidavit -- perjurious 6 affidavit, that she submitted with details, false 7 and mendacious details that could not have occurred 8 about an alleged sexual encounter between her and me 9 at the ranch in New Mexico. 10 Q. Which of my clients are you swearing under 10:17:30 11 oath encouraged [REDACTED] to include 12 allegations of an encounter with you at the 13 New Mexico ranch? 14 A. Both of them, both of your clients, both 10:17:49 15 Judge Cassell and Mr. Edwards were both involved in 16 encouraging your client to file a perjurious 17 affidavit that they knew or should have known was 18 perjurious and did know was perjurious recently when 19 they sought to file another defamatory allegation in 20 the federal proceeding. 21 Q. Was the encouragement such that what you 10:18:21 22 are charging Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul 23 Cassell with doing was suborning perjury? 24 A. Absolutely. 10:18:34 25 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. 10:18:35 EFTA01111192 94 l 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 Virginia 5 Roberts. 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 fro. , which 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 EFTA01111193 ' 4 95 1 2 3 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 11:39:47 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 standing. 11:39:54 9 MR. SCAROLA: Arc 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 -- ^5- <> 17 N.R. SIMPSON: Wait a minute. Wait a 18 minute. Wait a minute. Please don't disclose 19 something that she has a right to raise that S>/ objection if she wants to. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. 11:40:13SP. 22 23 \ 44 4 4 .2$›- <1 the THE WITNESS: Okay. 11:40:14 MR. SCOTT: Ask your question. .11:40:17 A CO) : .,$≥1 MR. SWEDER: Maybe you want to read back,S, 11:40:2tw %Sty ,A .44\ 4 A \ 4 C SN' 4 last couple of sentences. AC" Nr A" sci,' "C..'" N ,' A , <I5C ' ) 4t'" N : S • EFTA01111194 COQ' ,4( N • , 4 a0 [repeated 7 times] 4 s., s., sl.k -` A [repeated 3 times] s.* 4, 4, A [repeated 3 times] # ,,,) > .e .,.p• 4 ‹,\'''' 4" N\-- 4> s:„\- 4> ,,$) a [repeated 4 times] 40.` a 40.` • a , ''' s',•,1- 4, 4\ A ,, A A 4 A [repeated 3 times] . <04> <, ,4 - 4\ 4‹ EXHIBIT 3 C.) `As <1'. i - ' - '<< <, #, &4 ‹ ‘ N ' .4.' '''. . 4 ' .' s.* 4'' ' 4."->' ''' s:s• ' -' .#' 4:0 s:si.,, - 4 4 'e 4 e 4 4e 4 '\, 'Cs' 4 ;\' 4 .k' . ‘ [repeated 8 times] AZ" .. <8%'› '44' .r . *' # S ') # S ') # 4 . <›< s <)* ,.. 4 .'4 - * ' * ' * ' * ' 4 4 k ' 4 4 k ' 4 4 k ' 4 '> :<< . . ‘ [repeated 8 times] <0 ' c." 4 ‘,4 ‹ c." 4 ‹ # 4 ‹ # 4 ‹ # 4 ‹ .' .' .4, 0 N . .4. 0 # N,S) S S) <> <. <> 'C,4 . <)* s: '•' 4 < si "s . 4 < si>.. 4 > 4 > s: si '•• 4.> ,:sis. ao~o* * 4. [repeated 3 times] 4. 4. 4<. * 4. .(1-\ - - , [repeated 4 times] -, ‹ .:03''‘ -4.'4'. ..,,,P'c -.0 ,:s,,,N.`" -4:`,-4( .c," -44e ,:s,,,N.`" -4,;:.-A-4( ,:si, -4.1.,4< ,:‘i„c" 4 'es' , [repeated 3 times] 4e [repeated 3 times] 4 4. s.,* s' ' .(1-\ s.,* [repeated 5 times] s..' - ,0\ - [repeated 6 times] ..‹4‹ c., ..‹4‹ c., ..‹4‹ # 4 # 4 # 4 # k §k k .4., .4., N,, .4., ,,N.s> 4<,„ ‹s,,,„,,s, 4<,„ „Ni., 4<,„ „Ni., 4-,,,, ., Ns> , N * 4. [repeated 4 times] 4. 4. • s 4(` . s' ' . QA [repeated 3 times] s.,* [repeated 3 times] 0 .11, w ,3,- 4-z• s.„- -P N- ..,, ,s.) EFTA01111195 Sigrid McCawley From: Sigrid McCawley Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11:10 AM To: 'Mary E. Pirrotta; Simpson, Richard; Bor. , Ma ; Eiler, Ashley; [email protected]; Cc: ad Edwards (MINIM ); Paul Cassell Subject: RE: Regarding: Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (File fr: 20150013) Hello Mary — the parties have agreed to move my motions set for tomorrows hearing to the special set that is already on the calendar for March 11th and bump the March 11"' motions to a later date special set. My understanding is that Jack is in agreement with that plan. I am preparing now a Notice of Cancellation for tomorrow's hearing and rescheduling my motions for the March date. I don't believe Jack'spresence is required for the re-scheduled March lf motions as they are motions that relate to non-part Dershowites lawyers will then file a Notice of Cancellation for their Motions pending on March li n and move them to a later special set hearing time. Thank you, Sigrid Siprid S. McCav1/4 Partner BOIES,SCIIILLER & FLEXNER LIP 401 Fast f.as ()Las B1‘(1.. Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, 33301 From: Mary E. Pirrotta [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:59 AM To: Sim son, Richard; Borja, Mary; Eiler, Ashley; Sigrid McCawley; - Cc Brad Edwards Paul Cassell Su egar Mg : ards, Bradley vs. Ders owitz (Ft 1 0013) I received a Notice of Hearing for March 11 (a date that was not coordinated with us) for some of the matters that were scheduled for tomorrow but not all. Is that correct? From: Simpson, Richard.....111 1M Sent: February 16, 2016 10.54 AM To: Ma E. Pirrotta < • Bor a Ma ; Eiler, Ashle au assell Subject: RE: Regarding: Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (File #: 20150013) Those hearings are being taken off calendar and rescheduled • EFTA01111196 From: Mary E. Pirrotta Sent: Tuesday, February 16, To: Boda, Mary; Eiler, Ashley; Mal Subject: Regarding: Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz (File #: 20150013) Simpson, Richard; Please confirm hearings scheduled for tomorrow 2/17 at UMC (8:45 a.m.) and Specially Set at 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Privileged and Confidential I Electronic communication is not a secure mode of communication and may be accessed by unauthorized persons. This communication originates from the law firm of Seamy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. and is protected under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 52510- 2521. The information contained in this E-mail message is privileged and confidential under Ha. R. hid. Admin. 2.420 and information intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. Personal messages express views solely of the sender and shall not be attributed to the law firm. If you rec ived this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephone at nd destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein UP may constitute an attorney-client communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Pleas any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending an e-mail t 2 EFTA01111197 ! EXHIBIT 4 EFTA01111198 Filing it 37850740 E-Filed 02/16/2016 11:46:12 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 171H JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 PAUL O. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, v. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. RE-NOTICE OF SPECIAL SET HEARING f J hour) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the February 17, 2016 hearing is being rescheduled before the Honorable Thomas Lynch, IV, Circuit Court Judge, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County Courthouse, 201 S.E. 6th Street, Room 950, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, to Friday, March) 1,2016 beginning at 10:00 a.m., and will address the following matters: I) Non-Party otion to Strike And For Sanctions; 2) Non-Party Sanctions pplemental Motion to Strike and For 3) Defendant Alan Dershowitz's Motion in Limine to Overrule Objections NOTICE TO DISABLED PERSONS I If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you arc entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit's ; ADA Coordinator at 201 S.E. Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 333W, telephone number (954) 831-7721, within two (2) working days of receipt of this document. TDD users may also call 1.800.955-8771 for the Florida Relay I Service. EFTA01111199 Dated: February 16, 2016 Respectfully submitted, BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Ion a Bai ll 1.9” 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 as 1 Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. - Attorney for Non-Party [REDACTED] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Electronic Mail on February 16, 2016 to the individuals identified on the attached Service List. By: Is/Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 2 EFTA01111200 SERVICE LIST 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33156 4 \. s ey L. ler CO Nicole Richardson WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Jack Scarola SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409.6601 Attorney Jar Plaints:QS aO aO Counsel for Defendant Alan Dershowit: aO cA <4;,:s• ca :,- .t., -s.. • . :z,t ' ca s>.'s" 'P * <s- -s ,.& 3 CSA EFTA01111201 EXHIBIT 5 EFTA01111202 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 1N AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. TRANSCRIPT OF NON-PARTY EMERGENCY MOTION TO SEAL DATE TAKEN: December 18, 2015 TIME: 9:26 a.m - 9:45 a.m. PLACE: Broward County Courthouse 201 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 BEFORE: Thomas M. Lynch, IV, Circuit Court Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were reported by: Michele Cameron MAG NA 0 LEGAL SERVICES EFTA01111203 Page 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of Non-Party, 3 SIGRID MCCAWLEY, E. .= BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 4 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 5 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 6 7 On behalf of the Defendant: 8 STEVEN R. SAFRA, ESQUIRE COLE, SCOTT, KISSANE, P.A. 9 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 1400 10 Miami, Florida 33156 11 12 13 NO EXHIB ITS MARKED 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNAO LEGAL SERVICES EFTA01111204 Page 23 1 negotiations between the parties. It is 2 without question that these were settlement 3 conversations. 4 I appreciate what he is trying to refer 5 to, this later mediation with Judge 6 Streitfeld. There is a mediation that has 7 gone on in the last couple of weeks with 6 Judge Streitfeld. These were confidential 9 settlement negotiations that started in May 10 and went up to the present; so to say that -- 11 THE COURT: I agree with you. I think 12 they're confidential settlement discussions. 13 I'm going to grant the Motion to Seal. 14 MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 15 MR. SAFRA: Well, Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: Over the strong objection of 17 the Defendant. 18 MR. SAFRA: Can I, for the record -- 19 MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you. 20 MR. SAFRA: -- at least also reserve 21 that for the relief that needs to be shown 22 irreparable harm, death, or manifest injury, 23 and it's our position that that hasn't been 24 shown in the requested relief. 25 THE COURT: You don't think confidential MAG NA 0 LEGAL SERVICES EFTA01111205 Page 24 1 settlement agreements should be sealed? I 2 know you don't think they are confidential 3 settlement agreements -- 4 MR. SAFRA: Well -- 5 THE COURT: -- but if they are, which 6 I've made that finding, you don't think they 7 should be sealed? 8 MR. SAFRA: Well, you're making the 9 finding that they were confidential 10 settlement -- 11 THE COURT: I am. 12 MR. SAFRA: -- but that wasn't at issue 13 here, and they haven't even filed the 14 opposition, and we have our Motion in Limine; 15 so you're ruling upon that when -- 16 THE COURT: No. I'm just sealing these 17 because I think they should be sealed. 18 MR. SAFRA: Okay. 19 THE COURT: Although, you know -- 20 MR. SAFRA: Take your words for the 21 future. 22 THE COURT: -- everyone is aware of 23 MR. SAFRA: Understood. 24 THE COURT: Well, everyone. Whoever 25 read the New York Times is aware of the MAG NA LEGAL SERVICES EFTA01111206 Page 25 1 situation; so I will grant the motion. 2 MR. SAFRA: For clarity, the Motion in 3 Limine, when that gets scheduled, is your 4 finding that it's a settlement 5 communication -- 6 THE COURT: I'll listen to any argument 7 anyone has on any issue. We're not doing 8 that today. 9 MR. SAFRA: Just the seal. 10 THE COURT: I'm available for hearings 11 anytime after the 3rd of January. 12 MR. SAFRA: And can I state, so you 13 don't get a disagreement where we end up back 14 before the Court -- just because I'm aware 15 and I want to raise -- 16 MS. MCCAWLEY: Right. 17 MR. SAFRA: -- it and so that you have 18 an opportunity, it is our position or my 19 client's position that these meetings 20 occurred in New York and that the sealing 21 would apply to the public filings and in 22 Florida. 23 MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, if the intent 24 here is to continue to spew the confidential 25 settlement negotiations and have MAG NA 0 LEGAL SERVICES EFTA01111207