File 014084

Images

Text

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 1 of 34
EXHIBIT 1
To
JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 2 of 34
JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
v.
UNITED STATES
__________________________/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 9:08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2’S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
COME NOW Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (the “current victims”), by and through
undersigned counsel, to file this response to the Supplement to Reply in Support of Motion for
Limited Intervention by Alan Dershowitz (DE 317-1). Dershowitz claims that an affidavit
submitted by Jane Doe No. 3 in support of an unrelated pleading proves that she is “lying with
respect to her claims against [him].” DE 317-1 at 1. The affidavit proves nothing of the sort.
Indeed, if recent pleadings show anything, it is that Dershowitz continues to hide the truth about
his activities.
Before turning to the specifics of what Dershowitz argues in his supplement, it is even
more important to consider what he fails to argue. In neither his original reply (DE 306) nor his
recent supplement (DE 317-1) has Dershowitz provided specific evidence to contest Jane Doe
No. 3’s allegations that he sexually molested her. This omission is revealing, because
Dershowitz has repeatedly claimed in the media that he has irrefutable proof that her allegations
are false. For example, on January 7, 2015, on the Fox Business (Lou Dobbs) program,
Dershowitz stated: “I did the investigation in a day and was able to prove through all kinds of
1
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 3 of 34
records that I couldn’t have been in these places. The woman is a serial liar. If [Cassell and
Edwards] had done that investigation, they would have come to the same conclusion.” 1
Similarly, on January 8, 2015, on the Greta van Susteren show on FOX, Dershowitz claimed:
“Now I can prove through documentary evidence that I was never at the times and places she
[Jane Doe No. 3] alleges she had sex with me.” 2
Yet despite having publicly claimed to have
“all kinds of records” and “documentary evidence” that “prove” Jane Doe No. 3 is lying,
Dershowitz has yet to produce a single document to this Court. Dershowitz’s intransigence is
not limited to this case, as he has also refused to comply with discovery requests in a parallel
defamation action in state court. His refusal has led to a pending motion to compel. See
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Edwards v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-
000072 (Feb. 23, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 1) (“despite having had 45 days to gather materials
that allegedly provide ‘absolute proof’ than he has never even met Jane Doe No. 3 – and despite
having told numerous media sources that he had already collected such information –
Dershowitz has provided none of these documents . . . .”). 3
The Court should draw the obvious
inference that Dershowitz, despite making broad claims to the media, has no such evidence to
produce – because Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations are true.
1 http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3976630676001/alan-dershowitz-the-woman-is-a-serialliar/?
- sp=show-clips.
2 http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/01/08/greta-alan-dershowitz-this-time-its-personal/.
3 Jane Doe No. 3 explained in her earlier response that the Court should not allow
Dershowitz to intervene here because he can protect his (alleged) reputational interests in the
pending defamation action. DE 291 at 11-12). The Court may be interested to learn that
Dershowitz has recently filed a counterclaim against Edwards and Cassell for defaming him in
that action – suggesting he can litigate his reputational interests there, and thus has no need to do
so here.
2
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 4 of 34
In his most recent supplemental filing with this court (DE 317-1), Dershowitz twists the
facts and jumps to conclusions in service of his crusade against Jane Doe No. 3. For example,
Dershowitz notes that Jane Doe No. 3 told attorney Edwards before April 2011 that Dershowitz
had abused her, but then says “she and Edwards sat on this highly charged accusation for three
years and eight months before first using it in their [sic] pleading filed on December 30, 2014.
This constitutes laches that prejudiced . . . Dershowitz . . . .” DE 317-1 at 2. Dershowitz ignores
the key fact that in April 2011, attorney Edwards did not represent Jane Doe No. 3. Accordingly,
he could not “sit” on her claims against Dershowitz because he was not empowered, at that time,
to pursue them. 4
With regard to the claim of laches, Dershowitz argues that he has been prejudiced
because if the allegations had been filed earlier, “he would have been in a far better position to
secure travel and other records needed to disprove these charges.” DE 317-1 at 2. But, as noted
above, Dershowitz has already told worldwide news media that he has already collected all of the
records and can provide irrefutable, documentary proof that Jane Doe No. 3 is lying. For
example, Dershowitz has told the Boston Globe that “he will use his travel and credit card
records, which he said he has fastidiously saved, to refute the allegations against him.” 5
4 Nor did Jane Doe No. 3 sit on any claims against Dershowitz, notably claims relating to
the CVRA case. In 2011, Jane Doe No. 3 lacked legal counsel regarding the CVRA claim. It
was not until her recent return from Australia to the United States that she understood the claims
involved in the CVRA action and obtained legal counsel to pursue them. See DE 310-1 at 8, ¶
57.
5 “Dershowitz ‘thrilled’ to be sued for defamation,” Boston Globe (Jan. 7, 2015),
available at, http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/06/sued-for-defamation-dershowitzthrilled-chance-question-lawyers-sex-crime-accuser/21QibSrwNC343eKMadWNeL/story.html.
3
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 5 of 34
Dershowitz can’t have it both ways – simultaneously claiming he has the records and that he is
harmed in collecting them – and the Court should not credit his conflicting positions.
CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Dershowitz’s motion to intervene.
DATED: March 24, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone (954) 524-2820
Facsimile (954) 524-2822
E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com
And
Paul G. Cassell
Pro Hac Vice
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah *
332 S. 1400 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Telephone: 801-585-5202
Facsimile: 801-585-6833
E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
Attorneys for Jane Does No. 1, 2, 3 and 4
* This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence
purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah
4
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 6 of 34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the foregoing document was served on March 24, 2015, on the following using
the Court’s CM/ECF system:
Dexter Lee
A. Marie Villafaña
500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561) 820-8711
Fax: (561) 820-8777
E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov
E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the Government
Thomas Scott, Fla. Bar No. 149100
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33156
(305) 350-5300
Fax: (305) 373-2294
E-mail: thomas.scott@csklegal.com
Attorneys for Alan Dershowitz
/s/ Bradley J. Edwards
5
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 7 of 34
EXHIBIT 1
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 8 of 34
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.
CAS SELL,
vs.
Plaintiff(s),
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant(s).
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiffs, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell, by through their undersigned
attorneys, move to compel production of documents relevant to this action that defendant Alan
M. Dershowitz has refused to produce.
Dershowitz has told numerous media sources that he has collected documents that
provide "absolute proof" that he has not sexually abused a minor woman known as "Jane Doe
No. 3." And yet despite having received a valid discovery request for these and other related
documents more than 45 days ago, Dershowitz has refused to produce these documents to
Edwards and Cassell. Indeed, he has refused to produce any documents to them. Accordingly,
the Court should direct Dershowitz to produce these materials forthwith, as well as order him to
pay reasonable costs and attorneys' fees necessitated by his refusal to make any appropriate
document production.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 9 of 34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2014, Jane Doe No. 3 filed a motion (and later a corrected motion)
seeking to join a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe
Nos. 1 and 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736. She was represented by two attorneys who
specialize in (among other things) representing crime victims, Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G.
Cassell. The case involved an attempt to rescind a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) barring the
prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and his criminal associates on grounds that the victims' rights
under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) had been violated.
In her corrected motion, Docket Entry (DE) 280, Jane Doe No. 3 briefly proffered the
circumstances that would qualify her as a "victim" eligible to assert rights under the CVRA. See
18 U.S.C. 3771(e) (defining a CVRA "victim"). Jane Doe No. 3 briefly explained that when she
was a minor, Jeffrey Epstein had trafficked her to Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz (among
others) for sexual purposes. The motion also provided specific reasons why Jane Doe No. 3's
participation was relevant to the case, including the pending discovery issues regarding Prince
Andrew and Dershowitz. See DE 280 at 9-10 (explaining several reasons participation of new
victims was relevant to existing issues).
After the motion was filed, Dershowitz made numerous media statements about the filing
— and defamatory statements about Edwards and Cassell. For example, on CNN on January 5,
2015, Dershowitz stated that Edwards and Cassell are "prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These
are unethical lawyers."
2
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 10 of
34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
http://www. cnn.com/videos/world/20 1 5/0 1 /0 5 /wrn-uk-sex-abuse- al legations-alan-dershowitzintv.
cnn
In the course of defaming Edwards and Cassell, Dershowitz also made numerous
representations that he had collected documents proving that he had never even met Jane Doe
No. 3, much less sexually abused her. For example, on the same CNN program on January 5,
Dershowitz stated: "No, never met her [Jane Doe No. 3], I didn't know what she looked like until
I saw her photograph. . . . I have a superb memory. I have a memory of not having met her. I
did not meet her. And believe me, I remember everybody I've ever had sex with. . . . I can prove
it by flight records. I can prove it by my travel records." Id. (emphasis added). Dershowitz
went on to say that disproving Jane Doe No. 3's allegations was a simple task requiring about
one hour of work: "If they [Edwards and Cassell] had just done an hours' worth of work, they
would have seen she is lying through her teeth." Id.
That same day, on NBC's Today Show, Dershowitz repeated his claim that it was a
simple matter to collect documents disproving allegations made by Jane Doe No. 3:
Her lawyers Paul Cassell, a former Federal judge and Brad Edwards, deliberately
and willfully filed this pleading which they knew I had no opportunity to respond
to in court, without doing any investigation, if they had simply investigated the
manifests of the airplanes, if they had checked my travel records, if they had
asked me and I could have given the names of these people who are witnesses,
they would know the stories, totally, completely false.
https://www.voutube.com/watch?v—ZXePKTwsOf0
3
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 11 of
34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Two days later, Dershowitz told Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, that he had already
completed his investigation and had "all kinds of records" proving that Jane Doe No. 3 was a
liar:
They [Edwards and Cassell] did it for crass financial and political reasons. More
to the point is [what] they didn't do... I did the investigation in a day and was able
to prove through all kinds of records that I couldn't have been in these places.
The woman is a serial liar. If they had done that investigation, they would have
come to the same conclusion.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3976630676001/alan-dershowitz-the-woman-is-a-serial-liar/?
sp=show-clips.
In response to the CVRA motion that Edwards and Cassell had made for Jane Doe No. 3,
on January 5, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to intervene in the case to respond, along with an
affidavit claiming that he had not sexually abused Jane Doe No. 3. In that affidavit, Dershowitz
stated that "[i]f [Edwards and Cassell] had done any reasonable investigation of their client's
false allegations, they would have found absolute proof that I did not [sexually abuse her] ...
even the most minimal of investigation would have proven conclusively that I could not have
had sex with their client on Mr Epstein's island, in New Mexico or on the airplanes; and that I
did not have sex with her in his New York or Palm Beach homes." DE 282-1 at ¶ 8.
On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs Edwards and Cassell filed their complaint in this action,
alleging a massive public assault on their character by defendant Dershowitz. On January 9,
2015, Edwards and Cassell filed their Initial Request for Production to Defendant Alan M.
Dershowitz. They requested production of documents along the lines that Dershowitz suggested
he had already collected. For example, Request for Production (RFP) No. 9 sought "[copies of
4
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 12 of
34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
any and all 'absolute proof as described in paragraph 8 of the sworn declaration of Alan M.
Dershowitz."
On February 11, 2015, counsel for Edwards and Cassell sent an email to counsel for
Dershowitz, noting that discovery production was past due and inquiring as to whether a motion
to compel would be necessary. That same day, a paralegal for Cole, Scott & Kissane confirmed
that appropriate production would be made by the end of the week. Shortly after, an attorney for
Dershowitz disavowed that commitment, and indicated that Dershowitz would make his
productions by February 23, 2015.
On February 23, 2015 — 45 days after the discovery requests had been served —
Dershowitz responded. With regard to the request for production of documents, Dershowitz
produced no documents whatsoever. Instead, he made a vague commitment to produce
unspecified documents at some unspecified time in the future. Illustrative of Dershowitz's
failure to make any substantive production is the following request for production and
Dershowitz's answer:
9. Copies of any and all "absolute proof' as described in paragraph 8 of
the sworn Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects to this Document Request to the extent
that Plaintiffs seek to alter or shift any burdens of proof as a matter of law in this
action. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and
General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce all responsive, nonprivileged
documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
Dershowitz made the same evasive response — "Defendant responds that he will produce"
unspecified "non-privileged documents" — to multiple discovery requests. See Dershowitz
5
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 13 of
34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Response to Requests for Production 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
To permit the Court to review the extent of Dershowitz's evasions, a copy of his responses is
attached to this pleading as Exhibit A.
In short, despite having had 45 days to gather materials that allegedly provide "absolute
proof' that he has never even met Jane Doe No. 3 — and despite having told numerous media
sources that he had already collected such information — Dershowitz has produced none of these
documents to Edwards and Cassell. He has also made blanket assertions of a variety of
privileges, but has produced no privilege logs.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Edwards and Cassell request:
1. That Dershowitz be directed to produce all materials covered by the discovery
requests forthwith;
2. That Dershowitz be held to have waived any and all otherwise applicable privileges as
a consequence of his failure to timely file a privilege log; and
3. That Dershowitz be ordered to pay reasonable costs and attorneys' fees associated
with the need to file this motion to compel.
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE
Plaintiffs have attempted in good faith to resolve the discovery issues presented in this
motion (and others) as evidenced by the letter attached as Exhibit B. The Defendant has failed to
respond as of the time of the filing of this motion.
6
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 14 of
34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve
to all Counsel on the attached list, this
day of 1 , 2015.
Jack Scarola/
Florida;3atiNo.: 169440
tiorne E-Mail(s): jsx@searcylaw.com and
A
mep searcylaw.com
/1) • ary E-Mail: _scarolateam@searcylaw.com
aearcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9451
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 15 of
34
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents
COUNSEL LIST
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Thomas.scott@csklegal.com;
Steven.safra@csklegal.com
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305)-350-5329
Fax: (305)-373-2294
Attorneys for Defendant
8
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 16 of
34
EDWARDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
DERSHOWITZ,
Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
DEFENDANT / COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ'S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS'
INITIAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan M. Dershowitz ("Defendant") submits the
following objections and responses to the Plaintiffs' Initial Request for Production ("Document
Requests") propounded by Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G.
Cassell ("Plaintiffs").
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
These responses and objections reflect the current state of Defendant's knowledge
regarding the matters discussed herein. Defendant has not completed his discovery or trial
preparation in this matter. Accordingly, Defendant reserves the right to revise, correct, clarify,
supplement, or amend his objections and responses to reflect information hereafter discovered or
acquired. These responses and objections are provided without prejudice to the rights of
Defendant to use or rely upon subsequently discovered information or documents at any time,
including at trial. The fact that a Document Request has been complied with in part shall not be
construed as a waiver of all or any part of any objection that Defendant might or could make to
- -
EXHIBIT A
_o■
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 17 of
34
any Document Request propounded by Plaintiffs. Defendant further reserves the right to object
to the admission in evidence of any and all information made available in response to the
Document Requests on any ground, including, but not limited to, the ground that it is irrelevant
and immaterial to the issues in this action.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. The General Objections and statements in this section apply to each of
Defendant's responses to the Document Requests set forth below and are not necessarily
repeated in response to each individual Document Request.
2. By responding to the Document Requests, Defendant does not concede that any
information requested is relevant to this action or admissible at trial. Defendant expressly
reserves the right to object to further discovery on the subject matter of any of these Document
Requests.
3. Defendant's responses set forth below include only documents located or obtained
up to the date of service of the responses. Additional responsive, non-privileged documents may
be ascertained or identified subsequently, and Defendant reserves the right to rely on such
documents throughout this litigation and at trial.
4. Defendant objects to each Document Request to the extent that it calls for
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege or protection. By responding to any Document Request, Defendant does not
waive any applicable privilege as to that Document Request or as to any other present or future
discovery request.
5. Defendant generally objects to the Document Requests as unduly burdensome and
oppressive to the extent that they ask Defendant to provide information that is beyond
2
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 18 of
34
Defendant's possession, custody, or control; is publicly available; is already in Plaintiffs'
possession, care, custody, or control; or is generally available to Plaintiffs.
6. Defendant generally objects to the Document Requests to the extent that the
information sought is not identified with sufficient particularity.
7. Defendant objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks the
production of things beyond the scope of Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant further objects to the definition of "Documents" to the extent that it seeks "electronic
data as well as application metadata and system metadata" and "inventories and rosters of your
information technology (IT) systems — e.g., hardware, software and data, including but not
limited to network drawings, lists of computing devices (servicers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell
phones, with data storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools
and protocols" as overly broad and unduly burdensome.
RESPONSES TO REOUESTS
1. Copies of any and all documents reflecting or relating to any and all occasions on which
you have been physically present on Little Saint James Island including but not limited to your
visit to Little Saint James Island, as described in paragraph 3 of the sworn Declaration of Alan
M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control relating
to the sole occasion on which Defendant was physically present on Little Saint James Island.
3
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 19 of
34
2. Copies of any and all documents evidencing the presence of your wife and daughter on
Little Saint James Island, as described in paragraph 3 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M.
Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
3. Copies of any and all documents reflecting or relating to any and all occasions on which
you have been physically present at Jeffrey Epstein's Ranch in New Mexico including but not
limited to your visit to Jeffrey Epstein's Ranch in New Mexico, as described in paragraph 4 of
the sworn Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control relating
to the sole occasion on which Defendant was physically present at Jeffrey Epstein's Ranch in
New Mexico.
4. Copies of any and all documents evidencing the presence of your wife and daughter at
Jeffrey Epstein's Ranch in New Mexico, as described in paragraph 4 of the sworn Declaration of
Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
5. Copies of any and all documents evidencing the presence of your wife and daughter on
Jeffrey Epstein's private plane, as described in paragraph 5 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M.
Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
4
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 20 of
34
6. Copies of any and all documents evidencing the presence of your nephew on Jeffrey
Epstein's private plane, as described in paragraph 5 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M.
Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
7. Copies of any and all documents evidencing the presence of "members of Mr. Epstein's
legal team", as described in paragraph 5 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as overly broad because Jane Doe #3 alleges in the
filing titled "Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 For Joinder In Action"
(Doc. No. 279) (the "Joinder Motion") in the civil action captioned Jane Doe #1, et al. v. United
States, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "Federal Action") that she was "kept as [Jeffrey
Epstein's] sex slave from about 1999 through 2002." Jane Doe #3 further alleges in the Joinder
Motion that she "escape[d]" from Mr. Epstein and moved to Australia in 2002. Paragraph 5 of
the sworn Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz refers to plane travel by members of Mr. Epstein's
legal team after 2002 and therefore Defendant further objects because this Document Request
does not seek documents relevant to this action or documents reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
8. Copies of any and all flight manifests reflecting your presence or the presence of any
member of your family on any aircraft on which Jeffrey Epstein was also a passenger during the
same flight.
RESPONSE:
Defendant responds that he has no responsive, non-privileged documents.
9. Copies of any and all "absolute proof' as described in paragraph 8 of the sworn
Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
5
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 21 of
34
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to alter or shift any
burdens of proof as a matter of law in this action. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
specific objections and General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce all
responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
10. Copies of any and all documents supporting the allegation that "Jane Doe #3 is a serial
liar" as described in paragraph 8 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
11. Copies of any and all documents tending to establish that President Clinton has never
visited Jeffrey Epstein's island, Little Saint James, as described in paragraph 8 of the sworn
Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request because it misstates paragraph 8 of the sworn
Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz, which expressly states that "on information and belief I
have been advised that Secret Service records would confirm that President Clinton has never set
foot on that island." (Emphasis added). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific
objections and the General Objections, Defendant responds that he has no responsive, nonprivileged
documents.
6
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 22 of
34
12. Copies of any and all documents evidencing that Jane Doe #3 "has also told lies about
many world leaders" as described in paragraph 8 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M.
Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request because it misstates paragraph 8 of the sworn
Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz, which expressly states that "on information and belief [Jane
Doe #3] has also told lies about many world leaders." (Emphasis added). Defendant further
objects to this Document Request because it seeks documents already in Plaintiffs' possession
and/or that are publicly available. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific
objections and the General Objections, Defendant responds by reference to statements by Jane
Doe #3 reflected in the media, which are equally available to Plaintiffs.
13. Copies of any and all documents evidencing that "the State Attorney in Palm Beach
County dropped a case that she sought to bring based on an assessment by the investigating
detective regarding the 'victim's lack of credibility'" including a copy of the letter reflecting this
decision as described in paragraph 8 of the sworn Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request because it misstates paragraph 8 of the sworn
Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz, which expressly states that "on information and belief the
State Attorney in Palm Beach County dropped a case that she sought to bring based on an
assessment by the investigating detective regarding the 'victim's lack of credibility.' A copy of
the letter reflecting this decision was forwarded to central records." (Emphasis added). Subject
to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and the General Objections, Defendant
responds that he will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his
possession, custody or control.
7
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 23 of
34
14. Copies of any and all documents evidencing that the attorneys for the Jane Does acted "in
bad faith in an effort to have the media report it as described in paragraph 9 of the sworn
Declaration of Alan M. Dershowitz.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
15. Copies of any and all documents reflecting that Jane Doe #3 has charged President Bill
Clinton with having sex with her on Jeffrey Epstein's Little Saint James Island.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
16. Copies of any and all documents reflecting that Jane Doe #3 has alleged that President
Bill Clinton had sex or engaged in any inappropriate contact with her on the Island owned by
Jeffrey Epstein.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
17. Copies of all pages of Passports held by you at any time during the past 12 years.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as seeking sensitive personal information and
documents that are not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
8
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 24 of
34
18. Copies of any and all documents reflecting that Jane Doe #3 has ever willfully engaged in
prostitution.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as vague because Defendant is not in a position to
determine the willful nature of Jane Doe #3's prostitution. Defendant further objects to this
Document Request because Jane Doe #3 has repeatedly and publicly asserted that she gave her
body for sexual activity for hire after the age of 18 and agreed to secure other persons for the
purpose of prostitution or for any other lewd or indecent act and therefore the Document Request
is unduly burdensome.
19. Copies of any and all documents reflecting that Jane Doe #3 is either a liar or has
perjured herself in any way.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
20. Copies of any and all documents tending to support your assertion that Bradley J.
Edwards:
a. has a reputation of being sleazy;
b. has acted in a sleazy manner;
c. has engaged in unethical conduct;
d. has knowingly relied upon false statements in any legal document filed by him;
e. has engaged in any form of unethical conduct;
f. has engaged in any form of conduct tending to demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage
in the practice of law;
g. has engaged in any form of conduct warranting the loss of his license to practice law or
the imposition of any professional disciplinary action against him;
h. has acted in a corrupt manner;
9
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 25 of
34
i. failed to conduct any investigation of the allegations of Jane Doe #3 relating to you
before referring to those allegations in a legal filing.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
21. Copies of any and all documents tending to support your assertion that Paul G. Cassell:
a. has a reputation of being sleazy;
b. has acted in a sleazy manner;
c. has engaged in unethical conduct;
d. has knowingly relied upon false statements in any legal document filed by him;
e. has engaged in any form of unethical conduct;
f. has engaged in any form of conduct tending to demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage
in the practice of law;
g. has engaged in any form of conduct warranting the loss of his license to practice law or
the imposition of any professional disciplinary action against him;
h. has acted in a corrupt manner;
i. failed to conduct any investigation of the allegations of Jane Doe #3 relating to you
before referring to those allegations in a legal filing.
RESPONSE:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce
all responsive, non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
10
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 26 of
34
22. Copies of any and all records for the period 1998-2007 reflecting or relating to travel by
you and/or any member of your family on any aircraft, boat, helicopter, or other means of
transport owned, controlled, or under the direction of Jeffrey Epstein and/or any business entity
with which Jeffrey Epstein was affiliated at the time of travel.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request as overly broad because Jane Doe #3 alleges in the
Joinder Motion that she was "kept as [Jeffrey Epstein's] sex slave from about 1999 through
2002." Jane Doe #3 further alleges that she "escape[d]" from Mr. Epstein and moved to
Australia in 2002. Therefore Defendant objects to this Document Request to the extent that it
purports to seek documents relating to any time before 1999 or after 2002. Defendant further
objects to this Document Request as overly broad and premature because Jane Doe #3 has not
specified the dates on which she alleges Defendant engaged in misconduct on Mr. Epstein's
plane, which are the sole relevant allegations by Jane Doe #3 or her counsel concerning travel on
Mr. Epstein's plane that Defendant refutes and asserts are false. Subject to and without waiving
the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce all responsive, non-privileged
documents currently in his possession, custody or control relating to any occasions that may be
specifically identified by Jane Doe #3 on which she contends that Defendant travelled on Jeffrey
Epstein's plane between 1999 and 2002.
23. Copies of any and all records, including emails and text messages, between you and
Jeffrey Epstein between December 29, 2014 and today, regarding allegations made by Jane Doe
#3 of sexual misconduct by either of you.
RESPONSE:
Defendant objects to this Document Request to the extent that it seeks documents regarding
allegations made by Jane Doe #3 of sexual misconduct by Jeffrey Epstein because such
documents are not relevant to the subject matter of this action and would be attorney-client
privileged communications in any event. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific
11
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 27 of
34
objections and the General Objections, Defendant responds that he will produce any responsive,
non-privileged documents currently in his possession, custody or control.
Respectfully submitted,
Of Counsel.•
Ashley E. Eiler
aeiler@wileyrein.com
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 719-7000
Fax: (202) 719-7049
Kenneth A. Sweder
ksweder@sweder-ross.com
SWEDER & ROSS, LLP
131 Oliver Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 646-4466
Fax: (617) 646-4470
/s/ Thomas E. Scott
Thomas E. Scott, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 149100
Thomas.scott@csklegal.com
Steven R. Safra, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 057028
Steven.safra@csklegal.com
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Dadeland Centre II, 14th Floor
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
Phone: (305) 350-5300
Fax: (305) 373-2294
Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice)
rsimpson@wileyrein.com
Mary E. Borja (pro hac vice)
mborja@wileyrein.com
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 719-7000
Fax: (202) 719-7049
Counsel for Alan M Dershowitz
12
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 28 of
34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served via E-
Serve this 23rd day of February, 2015 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al.,
jsx@searcylaw.com and mep@searcylaw.com, counsel for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Attorneys for Alan M. Dershowitz
Dadeland Centre II, 14th Floor
9150 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
Phone: (305) 350-5300
Fax: (305) 373-2294
By: /s/ Thomas E. Scott
Thomas E. Scott, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 149100
Thomas.scott@csklegal.com
Steven R. Safra, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 057028
Steven.safra@csklegal.com
13
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 29 of
34
111 WEST PAI M RFACH OFFiCF.
2139 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33409
P.O. BOX 3626
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
(561)686-6300
1-800-780-8607
1-800-220-7006 Spanish
SEARCY
DENNEY
SCAROLA
BARNHART
ei—SHIPLEYA
ge()
0 TAI I AHARRFF OFRC.F•
THE TOWLE HOUSE
517 NORTH CALHOUN STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301.1231
(850) 224-7600
1.888-549-7011
VIA EMAIL
thorn as.sco ta,csklegal.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW:
ROSALYN SIA BAKER-BARNES
'F. GREGORY BARNHART
T. HARDEE BASS, III
LAURIE J. BRIGGS
'BRIAN R. DENNEY
BRENDA S. FIJUAER
'MARIANO GARCIA
JAMES W. GUSTAFSON, JR.
MARA R. P. HATFIELD
ADAM S. HECHT
JACK P. HILL
KELLY HYMAN
DAVID K. KELLEY, JR.
CAMERON M. KENNEDY
WILLIAM B. KING'
DARRYL L. LEWIS'
'WIWAM A. NORTON
PATRICK E. OUINLAN3
EDWARD V. RICCI
'JOHN SCAROLA
MATTHEW K. SCHWENCKE
"CHRISTIAN D. SEARCY
'JOHN A. SHIPLEY III
CHRISTOPHER K. SPEED"
BRIAN P. SULLIVAN 246
KAREN E TERRY
DONALD J. WARD Ile
'C. CALVIN MARINER 111
O_ECOUNSEL
'EARL L DENNEY, JR .5
SHAREHOLDERS
*BOARD CERTIFIED
ALSOADATIED
KENTUCKY
2 MAINE
3 MARYLAND
4 MASSACHUSETTS
MISSISSIPPI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
7NEW JERSEY
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON DC
PARALEGALS:
AVIAN AYAN•TEJEDA
RANDY M. DUFRESNE
DAVID W. GILMORE
JOHN C. HOPKINS
DEBORAH M. KNAPP
VINCENT L. LEONARD. JR.
JAMES PETER LOVE
ROBERT W. PITCHER
PABLO PERHACS
KATHLEEN SIMON
STEVE M. SMITH
BONNIE S. STARK
WALTER A. STEIN
February 25, 2015
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
Miami, FL 33156
Re: Edwards and Cassell vs. Dershowitz
Our File No.: 20150013
Dear Tom:
I write in the hope of amicably resolving a number of issues that arise in connection
with the discovery responses you have provided in the referenced matter.
Responding "Subject to and Without Waiving" Objections
and Claims of Privilege
It is a common and improper tactic to state "general objections" (or even specific ones)
and then to respond to every request "subject to" those objections or claims of privilege.
We cannot accept such responses. When this occurs, even if responsive information is
forthcoming, we have no guarantee that you have not unilaterally withheld information
subject to the stated objections or claims of privilege; in other words, it shields the very
existence of responsive matters from discovery without any ability to assess the merits
of the objection or claim of privilege as applied to the ostensibly protected matters. A
federal court described the problem:
This Court has on several occasions "disapproved [of] the practice of
asserting a general objection 'to the extent' it may apply to particular
requests for discovery." This Court has characterized these types of
objections as "worthless for anything beyond delay of the discovery." Such
objections are considered mere "hypothetical or contingent possibilities,"
where the objecting party makes '"no meaningful effort to show the
application of any such theoretical objection' to any request for discovery."
c-reac
EXHIBIT B
111■
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 30 of
34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 2
Thus, this Court has deemed such "ostensible" objections waived or [has]
declined to consider them as objections.
Sonnino v. Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth., 221 F.R.D. 661, 666-67 (D. Kan. 2004) (citations
omitted).
Of course, where claims of privilege are involved, the response must include a privilege
log enabling us (and the court, if necessary) to assess the applicability of the privilege
claimed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5). Under Florida law, "the burden is upon the
party asserting a privilege to establish the existence of each element of the privilege in
question." Fla. Sheriff's Self-Ins. Fund v. Escambia County, 585 So.2d 461, 463 (Fla. 1'1
DCA 1991).
General or blanket objections are inappropriate in and of themselves: "A 'blanket'
objection to interrogatories consisting of many, separate questions is insufficient.
Objections in such a case should be addressed 'to a particular interrogatory or class of
interrogatories, not to the interrogatories in general." Twadell v. Twadell, 199 So. 2d
501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) (quoting Carson v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 173 So.2d 743 (Fla.
2d DCA 1965)).
The same principles apply to the general objections you have raised to our production
requests.
Boilerplate Objections
A boilerplate objection such as "overbroad, burdensome, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," baldly asserted, is "patently without
merit." Such "stonewalling tactics" constitute discovery abuse. First Healthcare Corp.
v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also First City Devs. Of
Fla., Inc. v. Hallmark of Holly Condo. Ass in, 545 So.2d 502, 503 (Fla. 41h DCA 1985)
(noting that conclusory objections such as "burdensome" and "not reasonably calculated
..." are "words of the art [that] have little meaning without substantive support, ..").
Every burdensome objection you have raised is required to be supported by an affidavit
detailing the extent of the burden claimed to preclude a substantive response.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 31 of
34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 3
Asserting Privilege for Non-Existent Documents
It is inappropriate to assert a claim of privilege or immunity for non-existent materials.
Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263, 264 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We
must assume that the privilege is asserted for a reason, i.e., that responsive and
ostensibly privileged information in fact exists, else the privilege would not have been
asserted. It follows that a privilege log must accompany all such responses.
Claiming Undue Burden for Non-Existent Materials
Likewise, objecting on basis of burdensomeness and later conceding an opponent's right
to materials or later claiming materials do not exist constitute abusive discovery
practices. First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999).
Custody, Possession & Control
Fla. R. Civ. P. reaches all documents (broadly defined and specifically including
electronic data) in your client's "custody, possession, or control." Custody and
possession are self-explanatory. "Control" is broader; it "means the legal right to obtain,
even from nonparties. The concept of 'control' generally has been held to mean the legal
right to obtain the requested documents. Parties thus can be requested to produce
documents in the hands of their attorney, insurer, subsidiary, or another person outside
the jurisdiction of the court." Lawrence M. Watson, Jr. & Michael S. Orfinger, Fla.
Civil Practice Before Trial , 16.60 (1993 ed) (citing 8 Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice
& Procedure £16-10 (1998 ed.). A recent federal court case construing Fed. R. Civ. P.
41 (on which Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 is patterned), explained:
The term "control" comprehends not only possession but also the right,
authority, or ability to obtain the documents. Accordingly, Rule 34(a)
allows a party seeking discovery to require production of documents
beyond the actual possession of the opposing party if such party has
retained "any right or ability to influence the person in whose possession
the documents lie." [A] party is deemed to have control over documents
held on its behalf by its attorneys. A party is also deemed to have control
over financial records of the party that are in the possession of the party's
accountant.
MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3353401 (D. Kan. 2007) (citation
omitted); see also In Re Ski Train Fire of November 11, 2000 Kaprun Austria, 2006
siSistas,
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 32 of
34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 4
WL 1328259, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Courts have long construed the term 'control' as
meaning more than simple 'possession.' Control has been construed broadly by the
courts as the legal right, authority, or practical ability to obtain the materials sought
upon demand.'"). See also Frantz v. Golebiewski, 407 So.2d 283, 285 n.4 (Fla. 3 DCA
1981) ("Interpretations of the federal rule are persuasive in considering its Florida
equivalent.").
While your responses purport to recognize the obligation to produce documents subject
to Mr. Dershowitz's "contra', there are qualifications in the responses that would
appear to contradict that recognition. Your objection to the production of metadata has
no legal foundation.
Word Play and Gamesmanship
You will note that we do not include page after page of definitions. I believe that any
lawyer reasonably fluent in English can carry out his or her duty to construe
interrogatories and requests for production in the broad and liberal manner intended by
the rules. Florida courts frown on parsing and gamesmanship. See, e.g. First Healthcare
Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (chastising counsel who
did not turn over "event" reports because plaintiff requested "incident" reports as
engaged in "little more than a semantic shell game.").
Repeated assertions that statements were made by Mr. Dershowitz "upon information
and belief' is an example of prohibited "word play." That qualification has no bearing
on the Defendant's discovery obligations.
"Will Produce"
The Rules of Civil Procedure require production and not just a commitment of
production at some unspecified future date. If the documents you intend to produce are
available for inspection and copying now as they are required to be, we are prepared to
pick them up immediately. If they are not immediately available, when will they be?
Timeframe Objections
Your repeated attempts to restrict discovery to a narrow timeframe, fail to account for
the fact that this is a defamation action arising out of broad defamatory statements made
by Mr. Dershowitz impugning the honesty and integrity of the Plaintiffs without any
limitations as to a specific time or circumstance. Mr. Dershowitz has also made broad
public denials of misconduct unrestricted to any specific timeframe. We are entitled to
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 33 of
34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 5
test the accuracy of those statements and to explore the full extent of the personal
relationship he has had with Jeffrey Epstein.
Evasive Answers
The response to Interrogatory #2 is a typical example of an evasive response. Rather
than address the substance of the questions posed, the Defendant engages in a four page
diatribe about the alleged impropriety of naming him in a CVRA filing on behalf of
Jane Doe #3. If that is the only improper conduct in which the Defendant contends
Bradley Edwards has engaged, then the Defendant is obliged to say so.
Interrogatory #3 asks for the specific content of statements and the names of every
witness to the making of the statements. We get a vague reference to "such comments"
and references to the inability to "recall all of the people." Not a single witness' name
is disclosed. If the Defendant is unable to identify a single person he is obliged to
unequivocally say so.
Refusing to Provide Substantive Responses Until Jane Doe #3 is Deposed
This objection has absolutely no legal basis and fails to recognize that this is a
defamation action against Dershowitz and not Mr. Dershowitz's defamation action
against Jane Doe #3. This action is absolutely not dependent on the accuracy of the
statements made by Jane Doe #3, although the Plaintiffs were and are confident of the
accuracy of those statements.
Objecting Because You Think We Already Know the Answers
See for example the Response to Interrogatory #13. There is no legal basis for refusing
to provide information because the Defendant believes the Plaintiff already knows the
answer or has alternative sources to ascertain some or all of the information requested.
An admission from an opposing party carries legal significance that other evidence does
not have. We are entitled to Dershowitz's sworn responses regardless of what flight
logs purport to show.
Incomplete Answers
See, for example, Interrogatory #15. A question that asks for names, addresses, and
telephone numbers, is not properly responded to if all we get is, "Thomas and Joanne
Ashe, as well as Defendant's wife and daughter."
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 34 of
34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 6
and we will file an appropriate motion to compel. I would like to focus on substantive
disagreements, obtain quick and fair rulings on them, and move on.
/JACK SCAROLA
/mep
cc: Bradley Edwards, Esq.
Paul G. Cassell, Esq.