PROCEEDINGS

PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April10,2015 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. CASE No.: CACE 15-000072 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS M. LYNCH, IV Friday, April 10, 2015 9:05 - 9:55 o'clock a.m. Broward County Courthouse 201 Southeast 6th Street Room 950 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 JERROLD Wm. SEGAL, Court Reporter °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203823 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL On behalf of the Plaintiff: JACK SCAROLA, ESQ. SEARCY, DENNY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 561-686-6300 On behalf of THOMAS E. STEVEN R. of the Law Offices of COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II Suite 1400 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 305.350.5320 305 373 2294 Fax the Defendant: SCOTT, ESQ. SAFRA, ESQ. (via speakerphone) Co-counsel: Defense MARY E. BORJA, ESQ. of the Law Offices of WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K STREET NW Washington, DC 20006 202.71 .42 2 April 10, 2015 2 ESQUIRE SOL uT IONS 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn EFTA01203824 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 3 Proceedings in the Matter of Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, Plaintiffs, vs, Alan M. Dershowitz, Defendant. Friday, April 10, 2015 THE BAILIFF: Please, remain seated. Everyone, please come to order. Court is now in session, the Honorable Thomas M. Lynch, IV now presiding. THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: We are here on case number CACE 15-000072, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, Plaintiffs, versus Alan M. Dershowitz, Defendant. MR. SCAROLA: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Now, I see that someone is on the telephone? MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor, that's one of my folks. THE COURT: That's okay. I just wasn't sure who, but I knew someone was appearing by phone today. MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor THE COURT: And my friend, Diego, here will be taking this chair. This is "Bring Your Kid to Work Week," but since my kid is probably trying a case 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203825 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 4 right now, I decide that he's probably working anyway. Now, let me see MR. SCOTT: Your Honor, from my firm, Steve Safra is appearing by telephone from Cole, Scott, Kissane. THE COURT: I'm going to put him on the line in a moment. MR. SCOTT: Thanks, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. Can you hear me? Hello? Can you hear me? MR. SAFRA: Good morning, Your Honor, yes, thank you. THE COURT: For the record, counsel, if you could please tell us your name? MR. SAFRA: Steven Safra and I work with Tom Scott and I'm available if he needs assistance, but I'm not lead today. THE COURT: Okay, that's very good. Thank you. Mr. Safra, you may have some difficulty in hearing those individuals that are not real close to the telephone today because our equipment doesn't work very well. MR. SAFRA: Okay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Just let us know if it's a problem and if it is a problem and if it's necessary for the °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203826 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 5 gentleman to hear everything, then we'll have to ask you to come a little closer to the telephone. MR. SAFRA: I appreciate that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure, sure. Now, we have two motions to hear this morning Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, as well as the Defendant's Motion, as it relates to depositions. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: So which one do you gentlemen want to do first? MR. SCOTT: I think, the depositions, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: That's fine. It was the first filed of the motions, Your Honor, so I don't have any problem dealing with it in that order. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine, thank you. MR. SCOTT: Judge, do you prefer that we each address you from here or should be use the podium up there? THE COURT: Oh, just make yourself comfortable. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Your Honor, as you know, we gave the Court a book on all of the pleadings and things. Has the court had an opportunity yet to look at that? OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203827 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 6 THE COURT: I have reviewed the motions. I've actually reviewed everything that's been filed, but I haven't reviewed the book yet. MR. SCOTT: Okay Well Your Honor, the first motion is really THE COURT: Plus, I'm going to reserve ruling or at least I'll likely reserve. MR. SCOTT: On the both motions? THE COURT: Probably. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Judge, the first motion that's up for hearing is actually our Motion to Compel the deposition of Mr. Paul Cassell and a third-party witness, the Jane Doe witness, prior to the deposition of my client, Mr. Alan Dershowitz. And the factual background around it, is that this case was filed on June 6. Then on June 7 -- oh, I mean on January 6 -- and on January 7 Mr. Scarola sent me an e-mail and asked if I'd accept service. I did it one day later, on January 7. Then on the 9 of January, Your Honor, he sent me a Notice of Taking Deposition of my client, Mr. Alan Dershowitz. On that same day we sent Notices of Taking Deposition of his client, Mr. Cassell and also of the Jane Doe third-party witness. Your Honor, I might point out to you that the 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203828 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 7 Court has appointed a commissioner and she has been served with a deposition -- with a subpoena and a lawyer representing her has filed a Notice of Quashing that, which is going to have to be heard by the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Now, I didn't read that. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, that actually just happened, Your Honor. THE COURT: Because I recall signing -- I don't know if it was electronically or otherwise, but I do recall signing an order -- Colorado, I think. MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Colorado, it is. MR. SCOTT: Colorado it is. So Judge, the issue is the following: Mr. Scarola says that, "I, by just a matter of an hour or two, and within the three days, noticed your client first and so your client should go first." Our position is twofold, Your Honor. Number one, that the rule does not contemplate that, Rule 1.310, and the reading of that rule -- and I'm going to paraphrase it, Your Honor. It's actually in front of you. I'm not going to read it all, but the way that I paraphrase it, that rule 1.310 provides that a Plaintiff may only notice a Defendant for deposition within thirty days after service of °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203829 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 8 process, if the Defendant has otherwise initiated discovery, which we had not done yet, or is about to go out of the state and thus be unavailable for deposition, which is not in this case, applicable, as he is a resident of Miami Beach. So Your Honor, Mr. Scarola and I actually have a different interpretation of the rule. I will tell you, Judge, that I have researched it and I spoke to Jack and Jack has researched it and we cannot find a direct case actually interpreting that particular rule. THE COURT: There isn't -- well, I haven't found it either. MR. SCAROLA: So now that's three of us. MR. SCOTT: Well, it comes down to a question of how you interpret it, Judge? I think it says that a Plaintiff may only notice -- and that means a Notice of Deposition for depositions within thirty days after service of process. And the way that we interpret that rule, Judge, is that he has to wait thirty days after we respond in order to file it. I think that Mr. Scarola's interpretation is, "No, I don't need to do it, so long as the deposition is held within thirty days." That in a nutshell, that is what the dispute is °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203830 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 9 here, Your Honor. Your Honor, we think that the intent clearly was to provide at least thirty days for the Defendant, before he can be noticed for a deposition, to have an opportunity to prepare, to be not placed in a situation where if he were to answer today, you know, and/or the Plaintiff could notice him, for example, with a Complaint and then literally within ten days after responding to the Complaint or so, to have his deposition taken. I think it's a breathing space -- unless the Defendant, himself or herself, initiates that. And I think it just makes sense that that's the correct interpretation of the rule. Otherwise the Plaintiff would always practically have the first opportunity to take the deposition and the whole thing would be moot. But Judge it's your interpretation and you're going to do it the way you think it's done. THE COURT: I was hoping one of you would come up with a case, but I couldn't find one. MR. SCOTT: No, no, Your Honor, and I really tried and Mr. Scarola tried too. We have a second position too, Judge, which is this. We think that no matter how the rule is interpreted, that you have the inherent discretion under Rule 1.280(c) to let OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203831 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 10 the Defendant -- I mean to let the Plaintiff go first and the Defense go secondly. Here, you know, the Defendant did not initiate discovery and here we think that where the Plaintiff has made the accusation of the defamation, where the Plaintiffs' client, Jane Doe, the third, is also the accuser, that the Defendant is really entitled to know before he has to give a deposition -- the Defendant is entitled to know when it is that these purportedly acts of misconduct occurred, to feel out what their position is, especially when they took such prompt action, within three days, and to have those depositions taken before he, the Defendant, is placed in that position of having to respond. I think this is necessary in order to narrow the issues and in order to narrow the scope of the deposition and things of that nature. I would also say to you, Judge, in this case in particular, the Defendant is a public figure and he has been fifty years in the community as a leading lawyer and he should not be subject to deposition of this nature without at least having had the opportunity to hear what the accusers have to say. So Judge, it's almost like actually flipping the burden of proof, so we think that this situation OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203832 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 11 is one where, you know, from an equitable standpoint that it should be the Plaintiff first, and then the Defendant second. Judge, I found one case which I provided to Mr. Scarola earlier. Just yesterday, I actually went down to the law library and it's been a long time since I did that one -- and I found a case -- a case called Klein vs. Lancer. It's a 2nd District case, Your Honor. May I approach? THE COURT: Sure, of course. Thank you, very much. MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor. (Handing) This is a case in which a -- it was actually a slander suit, just like this one. It's not a long opinion, but basically, in this case the judge ruled that the Plaintiff's deposition had to go before the Defense's deposition and the Plaintiff took a cert petition to the Court on it -- and from a slander accusation. And the court said, "The trial judge did not abuse the discretion granted to him by a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)2 when he limited Petitioner's ability to proceed in deposing Respondent. Because that is so, there was no departure from the requirements of law." OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203833 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 12 THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCOTT: So here's a case where, clearly, this trial judge in this case, back in 1983 in the 2nd District agreed with this -- made the Plaintiff go first and the Defendant afterwards. I provide that just to show the Court that that's the closest case that I could get on this type of an issue, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I've actually had the very same issue before. MR. SCOTT: So Judge, I would also say one thing, and I don't know if you have yet had an opportunity, but when this case was first started MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm very sorry to interrupt, Your Honor, but I'm really a little bit concerned that we have a half hour set aside for two motions today and a significant portion of that time has already been used by Mr. Scott. MR. SCOTT: I guess, please, give me three more minutes, Judge? THE COURT: Sure Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: I apologize. When this Complaint was filed, in paragraph 17 -- and I think that this is very important for the Court -- paragraph 17 of the Complaint says, "Immediately following the OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203834 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 13 filing of what Dershowitz knew to be an entirely proper and well founded pleading, Dershowitz initiated a massive public media assault on Mr. Edwards and Mr. Cassell." I bring this to your attention because, Judge, the truth is that they initiated that accusation in the case before Judge Marra and in that particular litigation, they filed a Motion to Intervene. THE COURT: Right. MR. SCOTT: And in the course of that Motion to Intervene they blasted not only Mr. Dershowitz, my client, mostly, but they also blasted Prince Andrew; they blasted the President of the United States, all of which was totally unnecessary to that litigation. And it was that fact -- that fact that led to my client responding publicly, because he had been a public figure for fifty years, in order to defend himself. This week -- this week Judge Marra entered an order in which -- and I'm going to quote from it because I think it has a lot of relevance -- and I have a copy for the Court. THE COURT: I've read the news report, but not the order. MR. SCOTT: Yes, and I have a blowup of certain portions of it, which I think it's highly relevant 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203835 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 14 to this case. (Handing.) THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry, but are there copies available? MR. SCOTT: I sure do, buddy. I wasn't going to forget you. MR. SCAROLA: I wouldn't let you. MR. SCOTT: You and I have had too many battles in the past. (Handing) MR. SCAROLA: Thanks. MR. SCOTT: Judge, in that order I highlighted three portions and I'm only going to read now from two. What the judge did was to, basically, strike every accusation and sealed it, involving my client and all of the things, saying that it was completely unnecessary. It was not required and, in effect, he was saying -- and denying the Plaintiffs that -- Mr. Cassell's Motion to Intervene. I think that Mr. Scarola was actually a part of that case? And Your Honor, it's really important to see that what Judge Marra, who by the way is a very conservative excellent judge, who has had this case for eight years now, and has ruled constantly for OESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203836 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 15 the victims in this case on major motions -- "at this juncture in the proceedings these lurid details are unnecessary to the determination of whether Jane Doe and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join the Plaintiffs' claim that the government violated the rights under the Crime Victim Protections Act. The factual details regarding with whom and where Jane Doe engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to the central claim, that is, that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the government owed to the CVRA duties, especially considering that these details involved non-parties who are not related to the government's actions. These unnecessary details shall be stricken." THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And the third one -- the second page is just the ruling. On the third one I gave you it says, "Regarding the declarations in support" -- no, that's not the one I want. (Perusing document.) Okay. Here it is now. The second one, Judge, is where it says, "As mentioned Mr. Dershowitz had moved to intervene in that case to clear his name after these accusations were made." Judge Marra said, "As mentioned, Mr. Dershowitz moves to 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 16 intervene for the limited purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause order to take to the attorneys that have made them. "As the court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 motion and the related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Dershowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene will be denied. Regarding whether a show cause order should issue against the attorneys" -- which Mr. Dershowitz had requested -- "the Court finds that its actions of striking these lurid details from Petitioner's submissions is sanctions enough -- sanctions -- sanctions against the lawyers. "However, the Court cautions that all counsel are subject to Rule 11's mandate that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and a factual contention have evidentiary support and that the Court may, on its own, strike from the pleadings any redundant, impertinent or any scandalous proceedings." THE COURT: I do have one question? MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honor? 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203838 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 17 THE COURT: I really don't know what, if anything, that would have to do with this cause of action? It's quite a unique cause of action in a Federal suit, as I understand it? And the striking of those accusations, which is understandable to me, notwithstanding the fact that I'm not really very familiar with that cause of action -- I'm not sure what, if anything, that would have to do with this? MR. SCOTT: Well, I think, Judge, that what I'm trying to say to you is that it was really those accusations that led to this whole lawsuit, because he -- when they did that, Mr. Dershowitz, being a public figure had a complete weekend nightmare of a deplete publicity nightmare, with people calling him and things like that. And he responded by defending himself and trying to do it. And so now if these things hadn't been put in there by the same lawyers who are now suing my client, we wouldn't even be here today. And I think that that just goes to show you -- and I bring that to your attention, Judge -- that the equity argument that I did, that at least given this type of ruling by such a conservative judge -- and you know, I've never actually seen a judge strike things sui sponte like that and just dismiss a pleading like that. It 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203839 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 18 just shows you that it's the right thing to do in this case, to have Mr. Cassell and to have the accuser, his client, Jane Doe 3, be deposed before my client, Mr. Dershowitz, is deposed. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, very much, counsel. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, let me begin first by acknowledging that the Court has discretion to order discovery. MR. SCAROLA: There is no question about the fact that whatever ruling Your Honor were to decide was appropriate with regard to the ordering of the discovery is not going to be disturbed except under extraordinary circumstances, by any appellate court and I would assure Your Honor, that that's not a matter that we would consider subject to an appeal. There are very good reasons why the order of discovery here should be the order in which the discovery has been noticed. Although Mr. Scott has repeatedly paraphrased Rule 1.1.310 as prohibiting the noticing of a deposition within thirty days of the service of a Complaint, that's simply not what the rule says. I will quote directly. "Leave of Court granted with or without notice, must be obtained only if the Plaintiff seeks to take a OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203840 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 19 deposition within thirty days after service of the process." So Your Honora, a deposition cannot be taken within thirty days. A deposition may be noticed prior to thirty days, but it may not be taken under the terms of the rules, within thirty days, Your Honor. Service was obtained by consent on January 7. The earliest, under the rule, that we would have been able to take Professor Dershowitz's deposition would have been February 6. We sent a Notice of Deposition to depose Mr. Dershowitz well outside the thirty day period of time, on February 25, and accompanying that notice was a letter. And that letter is, in fact, attached to the pleadings that Your Honor has already seen. And what that letter said was, "If this date is not convenient, we are willing to move it to a more convenient time. We move it up or we'll move it back." And in light of Mr. Dershowitz's repeated public proclamations that he's extremely anxious to be able to be deposed to be able to vindicate himself, we will do it as early as you want to do it." Now, during this period of time Mr. Dershowitz was taking every opportunity that he possibly could OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203841 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 20 to appear before every audience that would have him, Your Honor, to defame Mr. Bradley Edwards and Mr. Paul Cassell. And I want to be sure than Your Honor is really focused on what this defamation case is really all about. This defamation case is about two lawyers who are working, pro bono, to vindicate the rights of more than forty women who were sexually abused and trafficked by Mr, Jeffrey Epstein over an extended period of time. And Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, through the work of Alan Dershowitz, had obtained an extraordinary agreement from the federal government. That extraordinary agreement said, that, "If you plead guilty to one state court claim and serve, basically, one year on house arrest, we will grant you immunity from any federal prosecution and we will grant all of your co-conspirators immunity from any federal prosecution, as well." Your Honor, that deal, if entered into, without the consultation nor with an opportunity to be heard by any of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, in spite of federal law provisions that expressly state that those victims must be consulted and they must have an opportunity to inform the Court as to their own position with regard to a plea bargain. °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203842 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 21 The position that the federal government took was there was no indictment the and Crime Victims Rights Act is actually only triggered by the filing of an indictment. Judge Marra has absolutely rejected that position and the 11th Circuit Court has also rejected that position. And there is a lot of active discovery in that case. Now, Jane Doe number 3, she moves to intervene through Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, her two pro bono lawyers. This action has nothing to do with monetary damages. It is simply an action about a right to be heard, to set aside an extraordinary plea deal, and to have an opportunity to be heard before those claims are disposed of. THE COURT: I was a little confused with the facts in the state case? If I recall, there was a plea to one count and an eighteen months sentence or something like that. MR. SCOTT: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: I think eighteen months is right, Your Honor. He actually served -- THE COURT: Well, he served about eighty-five percent? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. MR. SCOTT: It was a state court pleading. 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203843 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 22 They had cases in both the federal and the state. They took it to the state and they pled guilty there and he got an eighteen months sentence. MR. SCAROLA: And it was served mostly on house arrest. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: So in light of the scope of the activities that were engaged in, on the number of victims, and extraordinary plea deal, so Jane Doe number 3 moves to intervene. Allegations are made in a sworn Affidavit to support the intervention and basically what Judge Marra has said is that, "The original pleading that was filed in this case addresses the concerns of all of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. We don't need to have Jane Doe number 3 and Jane Doe number 4 moved into this case because their rights are already being protected under the terms of the pleading that currently now exists." And then he also says, here in a section that's included in one of these quotes that's been provided to Your Honor, "Jane Doe number 3 is now free to reassert these factual details through the proper evidentiary proof should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203844 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 23 pertinent to a matter presented for the Court's consideration." One of the matters being presented for the Court's consideration is the extent to which Alan Dershowitz was a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein and negotiated an unusual plea deal that immunized all co-conspirators. So it remains to be seen, the extent to which those representations do or do not become relevant in the federal action, but that really has nothing to do with the case before this Court. Because whether Jane Doe number 3 ultimately is proven, if she ever is, because this may well be a "he said - she said" type circumstance, where Alan Dershowitz says, "I never ever had sex with this young woman" and she says, "Oh, yes, you did" and it's never actually proved conclusively one way or another -- but that's really not the heart of this defamation case. THE COURT: Right. MR. SCAROLA: What Alan Dershowitz was saying repeatedly in front of every audience that he could gather and because of the profile that he enjoys, that meant every national morning news show, every midday national news show, every afternoon national OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203845 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 24 news show, every evening national news show, every late night national news show -- just about every single talk show he could get on, he said over and over again, repeatedly, "These lawyers knew at the time that this Affidavit was filed, that it was false. They fabricated it together with Jane Doe number 3. They did it to just enhance their own reputations and they did it for selfish, economic reasons. They all lied. They knew that they were lying at the time and they engaged in conduct that requires their disbarment." So the issue is not whether Jane Doe number 3 lied. The issue is whether Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards were liars? Whether they knew at the time of filing of the this pleading that it was actually false? That's the focus of this issue in this case. So when the Court is making a determination, Your Honor, as to who ought to be deposed first, when Mr. Dershowitz is repeatedly making these assertions, when his counsel is placed on notice, "Please, stop your client, so that this litigation can be conducted in a reasonable fashion" and Mr. Dershowitz continues to defame Mr. Cassell and Mr. Edwards on every occasion that he possibly can, I think it's very reasonable for us to say, "If you C ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203846 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 25 say these folks are liars and if you say that you have already gathered the proof that they are liars, then we ought to find out what export he has for that. But let me move on from there, if I could? THE COURT: Sure, but we do have another motion and the good news is one of my hearings was canceled so actually do we have a little bit more time, but not a lot. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll be brief about this. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. SCAROLA: One of the conditions -- one of the predicates that they want the Court to adopt before Mr. Dershowitz is deposed -- they don't want Mr. Dershowitz to be deposed before Jane Doe number 3 is deposed. However, Jane Doe number 3 is living in Colorado. Jane Doe number 3 has been served with a subpoena and there has already been a Motion for a Protective Order that's been filed with regard to that deposition including or particularly addressing the scope of the duces tecum that's attached to that Notice of Deposition. She is actually represented by separate private counsel. Separate counsel has offered to have those issues resolved by this Court, but that offer has OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203847 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 26 not been accepted by opposing counsel yet. We don't even know when or how those issues are going to be resolved. Ordinarily, absent a stipulation, they would have to be resolved in Colorado. Again, we really don't even know how long it's going to take to resolve those issues and the last thing we want to do is to have Mr. Dershowitz's deposition being contingent upon an undeterminable delay relating to Jane Doe number 3. I will tell you, quite frankly, whether Paul Cassell is deposed before or after Alan Dershowitz is of less significance to me, except that he is also out-of-state and that will also require some coordination. And I want to get Alan Dershowitz's deposition taken as quickly as possible, because I am hoping that the taking of his deposition will slow down the juggernaut of defamation, the ongoing assault that continues on almost a daily basis, until such time as he is placed under oath and is actually confronted with regard to the accusations that he has made. So for those reasons, Your Honor, because I believe that the rule clearly allows us to take a deposition, noticed before thirty days, but after thirty days, because our notice went first, because OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203848 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 27 the focus of this case is really on Mr. Dershowitz's having made statements that cannot be supported about the Plaintiffs having been knowing and been intentional liars and co-conspirators, we would ask, respectfully, that we get to depose Mr. Dershowitz as soon as possible. I'm sorry I've taken so long, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. Mr. Scott? MR. SCOTT: One minute. Judge, in the federal court action -- I think that it's been pending for eight years -- eight years later these -- through Mr. Cassell's law firm, they filed this Motion to Intervene. And to repeat, it contains accusations that are totally irrelevant against my client -- totally irrelevant, not needed for any reason, other than to just make my client look bad and to gather publicity by filing that. THE COURT: Well, that's what the federal judge, essentially, ruled. MR. SCOTT: Absolutely, that's what he ruled. All I'm saying is that, put into that position, a public figure like Mr. Dershowitz, and faced on a weekend with phone calls coming out of nowhere -- he didn't even know that the darn thing had been filed. And he responded the only way he did, by denying it 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203849 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 28 because he had to, as a public figure placed into that position. That's why it was so important to do it and to continue to do so when these issues come up. I mean, he's defending his name of fifty years. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, like I said earlier, I'm going to reserve and I'll let you know, probably, Monday or Tuesday, but we do have a motion and some argument on that? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, thank you, very much, Your Honor. This is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel their Production of Documents. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SCAROLA: As the motion itself reflects, we served a Notice to Produce on the Defense and after more than forty-five days have elapsed, Your Honor, we still had not received any discovery. There was an exchange of communications with opposing counsel. The Response that we got to the Request to Produce has some very basic flaws to it. First of all, it raises some general objections and it says that all their Responses are made subject to those general objections. The result of that is we don't know whether we are getting everything or if we are not getting OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203850 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 29 everything, because the objections are not at all specifically stated with regard to our individual requests. It also says that whatever production that is going to be made, is going to be made subject to privilege. However, there is no privilege log. We don't know whether we are getting everything or whether some documents are being withheld on the basis of privilege? It also says that production will be made, but with no indication as to actually when production will be made. I called these defects to opposing counsel's attention weeks ago, and I said that an indefinite Response that, "Production will be made sometime in the future," when the rules require production to be made within thirty days after the request is made, is absolutely inadequate. I said, "Can you tell me when you have the documents ready and I'll come and get them? I didn't get a Response to that request. Ninety days elapsed after the filing of the Request to Produce and just last night, on the eve of this hearing, we got a whole bunch of documents that I have not had a chance to review in their entirety. They are not, as far as I can tell, °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203851 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 30 divided on a request by request basis, and they consist almost entirely of pleadings filed in the Crime Victims Rights Act case, newspaper articles and yet the substantive requests that were made still have not been responded to. I'm told by Mr. Scott that his client is still in the process of gathering the documents. Your Honor, I am entitled to production within thirty days. I certainly should have had production within forty-five days and I certainly should have had the production now within ninety days and yet I still don't have even a representation, as to when the full production will be made of the substantive matters that have been requested, Judge. These requests are very specific and they are tied into the statements that Mr. Alan Dershowitz, himself, has publicly made. Those statements are identified in the Request to Produce. He talks about specific documents which he claims that he was able to gather within one hour of these accusations having been made against him, which he says actually "conclusively prove" his innocence. Now, at the very least, I ought to have the same documents that he said took him just an hour to gather after the allegations were made, but I still 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203852 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 31 haven't gotten any of those. I haven't gotten any of his travel records. I haven't gotten the airplane manifests. There's a statement that he does not have custody of the airplane manifest, but is made also subject to this general privilege objection. Now, I don't know whether he has them or if he doesn't have them because I have no privilege log. These Responses are patently inadequate, Judge, and in light of the efforts that have been made to try to get this discovery and to work these matters out, and I assure you, I don't blame Mr. Scott personally. I'm sure that he has been doing everything that he can to get this information from his client, but unless and until an order is actually entered establishing a very short deadline and unless and until sanctions are imposed so that Mr. Dershowitz is aware of the fact that he going to have to begin to pay for his extraordinary disregard of his discovery obligations, these problems are all going to continue. THE COURT: I was under the impression, as it relates, for instance, to the flight manifest, that he responded that he actually did not have those documents? MR. SCAROLA: He does say that he doesn't have 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203853 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 32 them, Your Honor, but that's subject to the general objections, and the general objections would allow him to not produce them. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: So that's the difficulty that we have in that regard and he also claims a privilege with regard to that Response. THE COURT: I'm not sure if he claims privilege but we'll get there. MR. SCAROLA: All right, Your Honor. That basically conclude my presentation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: I don't think that I need to go through these individually? The Responses are really boilerplate -- the same thing over and again. I will produce without any deadline. I'm producing subject to all my privilege claims and he is also qualifying it by saying that, "These things are not currently in my possession." Well, Your Honor, that's not really a satisfaction of his discovery obligation. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. MR. SCOTT: Judge, let just start off by saying that we have not received one document from the 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203854 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 33 Plaintiffs, just -- at all. Also basically their position up until -- just what I heard Mr. Scarola say -- "We are not producing anything unless you are." So I want you to understand nobody has any documents. We were actually the first one to produce and we produced documents yesterday. Okay? Number two, Judge, in our Response we clearly say -- nobody is hiding anything. "We will produce documents related to the false and irrelevant allegations asserted by the Plaintiffs on behalf of Jane Doe." We say, "We will produce documents of the failure by the Plaintiffs to investigate carefully the allegations about the Defendant before asserting." We also said that we would prove the Defendant's statements identified in the Complaint that are the subject. Almost -- if you look through the Responses, we say that, but what our problem is, is the scope of the entire thing. There is no limitation, whatsoever, in the Request to Produce as to time -- nothing. I mean, this thing goes back eight, ten, twelve years -- there's nothing. We said to them, "Okay. Why don't we do this? We'll produce in a time frame of the events concerning the accusations of slander. We will 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203855 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 34 produce all of the events, documents concerning the six accusations that Jane Doe says she had sex with, which is the relevant frame here, because we don't have any idea as we sit here today -- we have no clue as to when any of these accusations about my client having sexually assaulted Jane Doe number 3 ever occurred. So he has to go back and produce ten or fifteen years worth of documents? I mean, the litigation has only been going on for eight -- THE COURT: Counsel, do you think there's a reasonable limitation, timewise? MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, the limitation is actually built into the requests. If you look at the requests they are all tied into Mr. Dershowitz's own statements. He is the one saying, "I have documents that prove this." And everyone of these requests or almost all of the requests ask him, "Which documents were you referring to in your Affidavit?" THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCAROLA: Those are the documents so the limitation is built in and that's all. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: You're asking good questions, Judge. I don't mind. I prefer that. OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203856 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 35 THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: But Judge, what I was saying is there really is no limitation here. This woman has accused my client of six things but she can't even give us the date, and what concerns me is that if we don't even know when the date is, or when the events are, then how do we produce the documents relevant to it? Tell us when these things occurred? Give us a time frame, whatever it is -- 2004 to 2006? This is when it occurred. These are when the events are, so he can do it. But they want travel logs and everything. I mean, it's ridiculous for him to go through all this when we don't even know when these events allegedly occurred? So we need some kind of -- that's why I asked the Court, tell us -- have them tell us when these events occurred? Otherwise, they're just going to go around the corner and depose my client and then they're going to say, "Oh, based on what we've just learned from you, this is when that happened." And that really just goes back to my earlier argument, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let me ask you this -- MR. SCOTT: I just want to say one thing more, Judge. My client, Alan Dershowitz is a very public OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203857 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 36 figure. He has even had death threats over this and all types of things. He's concerned. He is very concerned about producing documents on a basis like this so I want to make sure that that is absolutely in there. Now, as far as the production of documents is concerned, we filed an Affidavit. I don't know whether the Court read it but you've got to read the Affidavit, Your Honor. THE COURT: If it was attached to your Response then I did? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's in there. It's attached, Your Honor. MS. BORJA: I've got an extra copy. MR. SCOTT: Oh, you've got an extra copy? MS. BORJA: Yes, I've got an extra one. (Handing) MR. SCOTT: This is what he says, under oath. (Handing.) THE COURT: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: And we have two problems. Okay? Number one is when he moved down here in 2013 -- he left -- THE COURT: (Perusing document.) I apologize. Just for the record, I didn't see 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203858 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 37 this before. MR. SCOTT: Judge, please, there are a lot of. documents, and you've got a lot of cases. That's why I brought these things with me. Basically, he is, right today -- when he moved down here he left all of his documents up in Massachusetts in his old home. He has not had an opportunity -- he is up there, literally today, trying to go through and trying to find the documents in order to produce them. But the bigger problem is this and the reason that Ms. Borja is here -- she's co-counsel -- is Harvard University. Some documents are tied up in the computers. He doesn't have a computer. See, the computers are all at Harvard Unviersity and we hired a company to try to go into those computers, to get the documents. We've been negotiating with Harvard to do it, but there has not been any agreement yet on that basis. It's by a third-party, not by us, and we are continuing to try to work that out so that we can get into the computers and get the documents from Harvard. And we've even hired an IT company to do that, but they have not been very forthcoming. There has not yet been an agreement and it's not under our control, but we are making every effort to 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203859 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 38 do that. There's one other thing, Judge. They're seeking a lot of documents if you look at the Request to Produce -- many things are not related to this case, but relate to the underlying federal litigation, involving the original plea deal and things of that nature. That has no bearing, whatsoever, in this case and so we think that that should be taken out. Now, as far as this waiver is concerned THE COURT: One question? MR. SCOTT: Sure. THE COURT: Let me just jump right in here? MR. SCOTT: Sure. THE COURT: Do you anticipate ever having a privilege log? MR. SCOTT: Absolutely, yes, but what we said, Judge, and what the case law says and if I can hand you what the 4th District says -- yes, we are going to file a privilege log, but the cases say -- and this is a 4th DCA case -- but until you decide today the scope of production, then no privilege log is required. It wouldn't make sense, because how do you know -- THE COURT: I really just didn't know if you anticipated one or not? 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203860 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 39 MR. SCOTT: Absolutely, yes, and we are going to file the privilege log, but we couldn't do it until we got some sort of a determination on the time frame of the production and also the nature of the production, when it's limited, and based upon that, we will then do the privilege log and that's exactly what the 4th DCA says. So until that's decided, there's really no need for a privilege log. There's no waiver. THE COURT: How long do you think that it's going to take for Harvard to make their decision with access? MR. SAFRA: I brought along the person who's been dealing with them. MS. BORJA: Judge, I have a call scheduled -- well, actually, I have had many calls with Harvard, with their general counsel's office, which is the -- they have final say over or access to the Harvard University documents. Their concern has to do with the federal requirements for student privilege. We are working diligently with them. I have a call with them, with their IT office, with our document vendor next Tuesday and I am hoping that I can get Harvard University's IT and their general counsel office to agree to it, but I don't control them, but OESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203861 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 40 I am doing everything that I can, Your Honor. THE COURT: Of course, I understand. I'm just trying to get a flavor, as to the time? MS. BORGIA: If we can get an agreement with them next week, then we will immediately have our vendor start pulling the electronic documents out of the Harvard University system. We'll need to then give access to Harvard's general counsel's office, so that they can then claw back any required student documents, subject to their federal privileges for the students. And once Harvard University makes the documents available to us, then we can review for responsiveness. We can then produce a privilege log, et cetera. MR. SCOTT: We can do a rolling production. MS. BORJA: I intend to do it. We've started our rolling production, as counsel had mentioned, yesterday. He hasn't even gone through all of those documents. So we're really doing everything that we can. I'm using my best efforts. I understand the need to get this done and nobody wants to get it done any more than I do. THE COURT: All right I'll tell you what. I'm going to reserve ruling on this. Give me until -- I know I'm not going to get this done by °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203862 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 41 Monday, so give me until maybe Tuesday or Wednesday. MR. SCOTT: Judge, take a few days. I'd rather you get it right. MR. SAFRA: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir? MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, just a few seconds on a privilege log issue to, perhaps, help you out? THE COURT: Sure. MR. SAFRA: If Your Honor was to narrow the scope to the six instances of the alleged times when this misconduct allegedly or purportedly occurred and excise out any documents after the filing of this defamation action and Mr. Dershowitz's legal representation of Jeffrey Epstein related to the federal action, which has nothing to do with this case, then we do not anticipate privileged documents but those documents are irrelevant, otherwise, and privileged as to a client, and Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, who would have to waive the privilege. MR. SCOTT: That's it for us, Judge. Thank you, very much, for your time. THE COURT: All right. Yes, sir? MR. SCAROLA: May I, like, a minute or so, Judge? THE COURT: You can, just as soon is I finish 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203863 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 42 up this note. MR. SCOTT: Jack always needs to get the last word in. MR. SCAROLA: Well, especially when it is my motion. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. SCAROLA: Oh, that's quite all right, Your Honor. Your Honor, I simply want to point out at this point that almost everyone of these requests ties directly to the statements that were made in Mr. Dershowitz's Affidavit and just asks for the documents that relate to those specific statements by Mr. Dershowitz. I don't know how I could impose any greater limitation, than to say, "Give us the documents that support what you, yourself, have sworn to under oath." Now, with regard to the airplane manifests, that's request number eight, and the Response is, the Defendant responds that he has, "No responsive non-privileged documents." THE COURT: Right. MR. SCAROLA: So he is asserting a privilege with regard to the manifests, but he is not telling us by virtue of a privilege log, what the privileged documents are. And so it is entirely improper to 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203864 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 43 assert a privilege over non-existent documents. And if the documents don't exist, then he doesn't have to assert a privilege. And if they do exist, if he does, then he is required to provide a privilege log. What the 4th DCA says is that If the Court has to first determine relevance, you don't have to have a privilege log to documents that are challenged on the basis of relevance. These challenges aren't relevant challenges; none of them are, but yet the privilege is asserted with regard to this production without any privilege log. And that's improper. Those privileges have been waived by failing to properly assert them. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: I did have one more thing I wanted to ask? MR. SCAROLA: Yes. THE COURT: I know that I didn't go on-line and review it this morning, but I do know through some conversations with my assistant, that we do have something upcoming? Is that a motion to dismiss? MR. SCOTT: Yes, the counter-claim. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SCOTT: We're setting that. MR. SCAROLA: And we also have other discovery 0 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203865 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 44 disputes that haven't been resolved yet. THE COURT: I'm sure. What? You actually have discovery disputes? Really? Oh, my. MR. SCOTT: I know that it's hard to believe. THE COURT: Yes, ha, ha, ha. MR. SCOTT: Especially, on a Friday after a long week. Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: All right. So we'll have a hearing on that and then I guess whatever happens with the Colorado attorney? MR. SCOTT: Judge, I just want to say one more thing -- that we got a request last night or just yesterday when she filed the objection to the subpoena, to consider having you hear it. I do believe that you will be the one. I just have to run it through the ranks, but I just wanted to let you know that it wasn't like a month ago and we didn't do anything. THE COURT: Oh, no, no, I understand. I just wanted to get the lay of the land, because some things are moving slowly and some things are moving faster. Let me get a copy of this Affidavit. MR. SAFRA: Your Honor, the Affidavit is there as Exhibit C to our opposition to their Motion to Compel. °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203866 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 45 THE COURT: Oh, okay, because when I read that knew I didn't see it, at least in my copy? MR. SCOTT: It's one of the exhibits but you could have missed it. MS. BORJA: There are three exhibits. MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I have two blank orders and also envelopes. Do you want me to -- THE COURT: Let me explain what I usually do. After I make my decision, I indicate that to my assistant who then simultaneously notifies both sides and requests orders, so we'll do it that way. MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Have a good day everyone. Off the record. THE REPORTER: We are going off the record at 9:55 a.m. (Proceedings concluded at 9:55 o'clock a.m.) °ESQUIRE 800.211.DEP0 (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203867 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS EDWARDS vs. DERSHOWITZ April 10, 2015 46 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY STATE OF FLORIDA SS: COUNTY OF BROWARD I, JERROLD Wm. SEGAL, Court Reporter, Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings in the above styled cause as set forth above; that the foregoing pages, numbered 1 to 45 inclusive, constitute a true and correct transcription of my shorthand reporting of the proceedings and the statements made by the involved parties. I further certify that I am not an attorney nor counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative, nor employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor financially interested in the outcome of action. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the City of Plantation, County of Broward, State of Florida, this 16th day of April, 2015. SD Wel tlaa Own pew Pa • lin Os en.... arm I-• PIP MINI Pail lisp mai May ea JERROLD Wm. SEGAL Court Reporter and Notary Public OESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com EFTA01203868