Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26142House OversightOther

Defendant Dershowitz provides evasive, incomplete interrogatory answers in defamation suit linked to Jeffrey Epstein

The passage highlights potential obstruction of discovery in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz and references his personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. While it points to possible conc Defendant repeatedly gives vague or evasive answers to plaintiff's interrogatories. References to a personal relationship between Dershowitz and Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiffs allege defamation by Dersh

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #014116
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage highlights potential obstruction of discovery in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz and references his personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. While it points to possible conc Defendant repeatedly gives vague or evasive answers to plaintiff's interrogatories. References to a personal relationship between Dershowitz and Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiffs allege defamation by Dersh

Tags

personal-relationshipjeffrey-epsteindiscoveryforeign-influencedefamationalan-dershowitzlegal-exposurehouse-oversightlegal-obstruction

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.
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.”

Technical Artifacts (3)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #9:08-CV-80736-KAM
Wire Refreference
Wire Refreferences

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH

45p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires

The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu

88p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM

66p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Alan Dershowitz Denies Underage Sex Allegations by [REDACTED - Survivor] Amid Epstein Settlement

The passage provides a specific denial by a high‑profile attorney (Dershowitz) of alleged underage sexual contact, referencing travel records and FBI statements. While it mentions notable figures (Cli Dershowitz publicly refutes [REDACTED - Survivor]' claim of underage sex with him. He cites travel records and FBI findings to support his alibi. Roberts' allegations were reportedly withdrawn.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free - The Daily Beast

Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free - The Daily Beast Page 1 of 4 THE DAILY BEAST READ THIS SKIP THAT BLOGS & STORIES Billionaire Pedophile Goes Free PRINT Hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein became a free man Wednesday, five years after he was first accused of sexually abusing underage girls. After months of reporting, The Daily Beast's reveals exclusive details of the investigation and the legal wrangling that saved him from a long prison term. She reports: • Palm Beach's police chief objected to Epstein's "special treatment" and gave The Daily Beast an exclusive look at his nine-hour deposition about the investigation. • Earlier versions of the U.S attorney's charges, including a sealed 53-page indictment, could have landed Epstein in prison for 20 years. • Victims alleged that Epstein molested underage girls from South America. Europe. and the former Soviet republics. including three 12-year-old girls brought over from France as a birthday gift. • The v

4p

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.