Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-18995House OversightDeposition

Dershowitz seeks court order to share sealed deposition transcript in his defense

The passage outlines a procedural request by attorney Alan Dershowitz to lift a confidentiality order on a deposition transcript. While it mentions legal standards and Florida case law, it provides no Dershowitz requests permission to share a sealed deposition transcript with counsel, experts, insure Cites Florida law requiring the least restrictive sealing order and relevant precedents. Notes tha

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #015594
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage outlines a procedural request by attorney Alan Dershowitz to lift a confidentiality order on a deposition transcript. While it mentions legal standards and Florida case law, it provides no Dershowitz requests permission to share a sealed deposition transcript with counsel, experts, insure Cites Florida law requiring the least restrictive sealing order and relevant precedents. Notes tha

Tags

confidentiality-ordercourt-filingprocedural-challengelegal-procedurelegal-exposurehouse-oversightflorida-law

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.
I. DERSHOWITZ MUST BE ALLOWED TO SHARE ROBERTS’S DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT WITH THOSE WORKING ON DERSHOWITZ’S BEHALF AS PART OF THIS LITIGATION. Dershowitz asks the Court to modify the Confidentiality Order to allow Dershowitz to use the transcript in ways necessary for his defense including sharing the transcript with any counsel and other legal support, experts, consultants, insurers, and others typically permitted access to supposedly confidential information in addition to using it with potential witnesses and others as deemed necessary in the professional judgment of his counsel as set forth above. Dershowitz and his attorneys are aware of and will abide by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, including its comments, regarding the handling of any information deemed by this Court to be confidential within the limitations of the applicable rules. it. ALLOWING DERSHOWITZ TO USE THE DEPOSITION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF HIS DEFENSE IS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW. Florida law requires that any sealing order be the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish its purpose. The Florida Supreme Court held in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), that a sealing order can be entered only where “no reasonable alternative is available to accomplish the desired result, and, if none exists, the trial court must use the least restrictive closure necessary to accomplish its purpose.” Jd. at 118 (emphasis added); see also Carter v. Conde Nast Publ’ns, 983 So. 2d 23, 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“an order sealing court records must state, inter alia, the particular grounds for making the court records confidential, that the closure is no broader than necessary, and that there are no less restrictive measures available.”). This Court has not set forth any reasons addressing a request by Roberts to seal her deposition transcript, much less determined that “no reasonable alternative is available” to accomplish Roberts’s desired result. See News-Press Publ’g Co. v. State, 345 So. 2d 865, 867

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.