Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17524House OversightDeposition

Confidentiality Order Limits Disclosure of [REDACTED - Survivor] Deposition in Dershowitz Defamation Case

The passage reveals a court‑ordered confidentiality seal on a deposition involving [REDACTED - Survivor] and attorney Alan Dershowitz, but provides no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, financial flows, or h Dershowitz seeks to modify a confidentiality order to allow limited disclosure of Ms. Roberts’s test Roberts filed a motion to quash a subpoena and a protective order was issued, resulting in a seale

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015591
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals a court‑ordered confidentiality seal on a deposition involving [REDACTED - Survivor] and attorney Alan Dershowitz, but provides no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, financial flows, or h Dershowitz seeks to modify a confidentiality order to allow limited disclosure of Ms. Roberts’s test Roberts filed a motion to quash a subpoena and a protective order was issued, resulting in a seale

Tags

confidentiality-ordercourt-filinglegal-strategydocument-concealmentdefamation-lawsuitvirginia-giuffrelegal-exposurehouse-oversight

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.
Accordingly, Dershowitz requests that the Court modify the Confidentiality Order to confirm that Dershowitz’s counsel may disclose Ms. Roberts’s testimony as they deem necessary in their professional judgment in order to represent Dershowitz in this case. BACKGROUND & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dershowitz was first presented with Roberts’s heinous and false allegations against him when her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards (“Edwards”) and Paul G. Cassell (“Cassell”), filed certain now-stricken allegations in the action styled Jane Doe, et al. v. United States of America, No. 08- 80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the “Federal Action”). After Dershowitz defended himself to the media, Edwards and Cassell sued Dershowitz for defamation. The falsity of Roberts’s allegations, her credibility, and the investigation her lawyers took to assess those allegations and credibility before filing those allegations are a critical part of Dershowitz’s defense. On April 9, 2015, Roberts moved for an order “quashing the subpoena duces tecum served on her by Defendant, or alternatively, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) for issuance of a protective order sharply limiting the scope of the subpoena” (the “Motion to Quash”). See Motion to Quash, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Roberts did not move to seal the deposition transcript and the resulting order did not seal it, but instead directed that “a confidentiality order shall be entered.” See November 4, 2015 Email from Judicial Assistant Susan Moss, attached hereto as Exhibit B and November 12, 2015 Order, attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Confidentiality Order then prepared by Roberts’s counsel and consented to by all parties includes a provision stating that “[t]he deposition testimony of Non-Party Virginia Giuffre will be designated as ‘Confidential’ and not subject to public disclosure” and that “[i]t may only be filed under seal.” See January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, attached hereto as Exhibit D.

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Lesley Groff <MIEll

1p

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.