Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-15534House OversightOther

Government delays addition of alleged victim [REDACTED - Survivor] to Edwards v. Dershowitz case

The passage reveals procedural obstruction by the Government in a civil case involving alleged sexual abuse, mentioning a high‑profile victim ([REDACTED - Survivor]) but provides no concrete evidence of mi Government produced 1,500 pages of irrelevant material and sealed 14,825 pages claiming privilege. Victims' counsel sought to add [REDACTED - Survivor] as a petitioner via stipulation in summer 2014. Gove

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015627
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals procedural obstruction by the Government in a civil case involving alleged sexual abuse, mentioning a high‑profile victim ([REDACTED - Survivor]) but provides no concrete evidence of mi Government produced 1,500 pages of irrelevant material and sealed 14,825 pages claiming privilege. Victims' counsel sought to add [REDACTED - Survivor] as a petitioner via stipulation in summer 2014. Gove

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

procedural-obstructioncourt-recordsgovernment-obstructionlegal-procedurelegal-exposurehouse-oversightvictim-rightssexual-abuse-allegations

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 7 of 20 followed (see generally Docket Entry or “DE” 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE 225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court. The Government claimed that these pages were “privileged” for various reasons, attaching an abbreviated privilege log. While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the case, including Ms. [REDACTED] (who was identified in court pleadings as “Jane Doe No. 3”). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the Government — as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim — did not respond to counsel’s request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims’ counsel might need to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a motion immediately, victims’ counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 — more than four months after the initial request for a stipulated joinder into the case — the Government tersely indicated its objection, without indicating any reason: “Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation.” See DE 291 at 5.

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.