File 019297

Letter Regarding Protective Order Violations and Confidentiality Disputes in Giuffre v. Maxwell (File 019297)

Legal correspondence from Dershowitz's counsel to opposing parties regarding alleged violations of court protective orders and confidential discovery materials disclosed to the Washington Post.

Summary

On February 7, 2018, attorneys representing Alan Dershowitz wrote to counsel in Giuffre v. Maxwell alleging that plaintiff's counsel violated district court protective orders by providing cherry-picked and misleading characterizations of sealed discovery materials to Washington Post reporters. The letter details accusations that specific details from a sealed deposition were reproduced in media disclosures, and argues that selective presentation of evidence misrepresents the witness's credibility by omitting her claims about assistance from "Russians" and Anonymous, alleged videos of political figures, and other statements that undermine her testimony against Dershowitz. The correspondence demands stipulation to unseal the witness's emails to allow full public disclosure and permit Dershowitz to respond to leaked accusations.

Images
Text

RICHARD D. EMERY
ANDREW G. CELLI, JR.
MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF
JONATHAN S. ABADY
EARL S. WARD
ILANN M. MAAZEL
HAL R. LIEBERMAN
DANIEL J. KORNSTEIN
a ANDREW F. WILSON
ELIZABETH S. SAYLOR
KATHERINE RosENFELD
DEBRA L. GREENBERGER
ZOE SALZMAN
SAM SHAPIRO
By Email
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
J. Stanley Pottinger
.1. Stanley Pottinger PLLC
49 Twin Lakes Road
South Salem, NY 10590
Email:
AyroRNEYS Al LAw
600 Ft Fri I MTN uR AT RocKual.F.R CENTIM
10" FLOOR
Now YORK, NEW YORK 10020
TEL
FAX:
wmv.ccbalaw.com
February 7, 2018
Paul G. Cassell
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Email
Sigrid S. McCawley
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email:
Laura A. Menninger
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East Tenth Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Email:
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Counsel:
As you know, this firm represents Intervenor Alan Dershowitz in the
above-referenced case.
CHARLES J. OGLETREE, JR.
DIANE L. HOUK
JESSICA CLARKE
ALISON FRICK
DAVID LEBOWITZ
DOUGLAS E. LIEB
ALANNA KAUFMAN
EMMA L. FREEMAN
DAVID BERMAN
ASHOK CHANDRAN
DANIEL TREIMAN
It has recently come to our attention that plaintiff's counsel provided reporters
from the Washington Post with submissions from a disciplinary proceeding pending before the
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 019297
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
Page 2
Florida Bar that reference information that was developed during discovery in this case. In
keeping with plaintiff's enduring practice of insisting on selective confidentiality to bolster her
own accusations while concealing evidence that undermines her claims, the materials provided to
the Post include cherry-picked and misleading characterizations of evidence that is sealed and/or
designated confidential under the protective order governing this action—to say nothing of the
fact that it is simply false. In several instances, the materials plaintiff's counsel provided to the
Post directly reproduce exhibits that were marked confidential in this case by plaintiff; and which
plaintifffiled under seal before the district court. These disclosures violate both the spirit and
the letter of the district court's orders, and appear calculated to hamstring Professor
Dershowitz—who respects and will abide by the court's orders—in responding to the
accusations against him.
Most notably, the materials provided to the Washington Post repeat the
outrageous claim that "came forward" and "corroborated" Ms. Giuffre's
accusations against Dershowitz when she "testified under oath that she had been trafficked by
Mr. Epstein and had had sex with Mr. Dershowitz." As plaintiff's counsel are well aware, Ms.
testimony is marked confidential and remains under seal; indeed, plaintiff hersqf
filed the relevant deposition transcript under seal before the district court. See ECF No. 701-1.
Yet the materials provided to the Washington Post repeat specific details from Ms.
sealed deposition, including specific sex acts she claims occurred with specific individuals.
Plaintiff's counsel's selective characterization of this sealed evidence to a national newspaper is
an outrageous violation of the district court's orders. See ECF No. 62 III 4 ("CONFIDENTIAL
information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this
case."); see also, e.g., Taylor v. Teledyne Techs., Inc., 338 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1343 (N.D. Ga.
2004) (publicly summarizing and paraphrasing confidential documents violated protective order
even without verbatim disclosure).
This is especially so given that the totality of this individual's testimony and other
documents produced confidentially in discovery (none of which plaintiff's counsel elected to
describe to reporters) demonstrate that her claims are utterly unworthy of belief.' Among other
things, in emails sent in 2016, Ms. Iclaimed that she received help from "the Russians"
and the hacker network Anonymous in responding to a hack of her email by the CIA; that Hillary
Clinton sent "Special Agents Forces Men" to "intimidate[]" and "ruff{] (sic) . . . up" her friend in
an effort to "to protect [Ms. Clinton's] presidential campaign"; that she possessed video and
photographic evidence against both Ms. Clinton and Donald Trump that she would release to
Wikileaks and Russian media by Sunday, October 23, 2016; that she possessed video footage of
Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Richard Branson having sex with her friend which was backed
up on "several USB sticks" that she had "securely sent . . . to various different locations
throughout Europe"; and that another friend had—while the two "were showering together"—
showed her physical evidence that "Donald Trump liked flicking and sucking her nipples until
1 As you know, on June 21, 2017, we, on behalf of Professor Dershowitz ,wrote to Judge Sweet
asking that, in the event that Ms. deposition were unsealed (or its designation as
"confidential" by the parties withdrawn), the Court permit public disclosure of her emails.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 019298
EMERY CELL! BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
Page 3
they were raw." Notably, in these emails, Ms. mentions Professor Dershowitz, but she
does not allege that she was trafficked to or had sex with him.
As you know, Ms. provided this information, on the record, to a New
York Post journalist with the expressed hope that it would be published. Although these
allegations, if credible, would have been the story of a lifetime — videos and eye witness
accounts of sexual misconduct by two presidential candidates, a former president, and one of the
world's leading entrepreneurs— the New York Post declined to publish them, presumably, and
not surprisingly, because it did not find Ms. credible. Nonetheless, thereafter, Ms.
represented by the same lawyers who represent the plaintiff in the above-captioned
case, was permitted to testify that Professor Dershowitz had sex with her. These same lawyers
have now provided documents to the Washington Post repeating the false charges, but have
failed to provide the Post with the emails that fatally undermine them. These selective
disclosures, and this use of the court's protective and sealing orders "as a sword," are manifestly
improper.
Professor Dershowitz intends to pursue all available remedies for violations of the
district court's orders, including sanctions. That said, to remedy the gross imbalance in available
information created by counsel's improper disclosures, we ask that the parties' counsel
immediately agree to a stipulation, to be so-ordered by Judge Sweet, unsealing and removing the
confidentiality designations from Ms. emails. This will allow for full public
disclosure of these matters—where their falsity, exposed to the "sunlight" of public review, will
be manifest—and it will permit Professor Dershowitz to respond fully to the accusations
plaintiffs counsel leaked to the Washington Post. Only with such full disclosure can the public
decide who is telling the truth.
Please let us know your response to this request by noon on February 9, 2018.
Very truly yours,
Andrew G. Cel 1, Jr.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 019299