Filing # 33695105 E-Filed 10/26/2015 05:26:19 PM

Filing # 33695105 E-Filed 10/26/2015 05:26:19 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE NO. 3'S MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz") respectfully submits this Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Quash or for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena filed by non-party Jane Doe No. 3 (the "Motion to Quash"). On September 21, 2015, the non-party who submitted the Motion to Quash under the pseudonym "Jane Doe No. 3" filed a lawsuit captioned v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Maxwell Action"). A copy of the complaint in the Maxwell Action is attached as Exhibit A. By publicly filing the complaint in the Maxwell Action in her own name, ("=") made a voluntary decision to identify herself and therefore no longer has any plausible argument that she should be permitted to proceed anonymously, either in this defamation action or otherwise.' As set forth in Dershowitz's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Quash, chose to identify herself publicly even before she filed the Maxwell Action. Moreover, at a EFTA00606793 Even more significantly, public allegations in the Maxwell Action eliminate any argument that she should be excused from providing discovery in this action based on concerns of confidentiality and privacy. alleges in her complaint in the Maxwell Action that she was sexually abused and sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") between 1999 and 2002. See generally Exhibit A. further alleges that Maxwell defamed her by disputing account of this time period. See id. The subpoena served upon in this case seeks deposition testimony and the production of documents concerning false and gratuitous allegations that she was abused by Dershowitz on multiple occasions during the time period she was purportedly a "sex slave." In other words, the subpoena seeks discovery relating to the very same allegations that placed at issue by publicly filing the Maxwell Action. In Motion to Quash, she seeks an order from the Court that quashes the subpoena altogether or significantly limits the scope of the testimony and documents she must provide. Among other arguments, contends that the subpoena is "oppressive" because it "seeks highly personal and sensitive information [about] the time when she was being sexually abused as a minor" and because it seeks "confidential" and "personal" information about payments made to during the time when she was purportedly trafficked by Epstein. Motion to Quash, at 4, 9. As set forth in Dershowitz's Opposition to the Motion to Quash (the "Opposition"), assertions of confidentiality and privacy lacked any legal or factual support at the time she filed the Motion to Quash. Even assuming that arguments were valid when she recent public deposition in this case, given name was used on multiple occasions in the presence of her counsel, who did not raise any objection. 2 EFTA00606794 initially raised them, however, has now voluntarily waived her prior claims of privacy and confidentiality. By filing the Maxwell Action, has placed her allegations of being a "sex slave" at issue in a public litigation where she is seeking monetary recovery. thus has no valid basis to assert that the very same matters are somehow "highly personal," "sensitive," or "confidential" for purposes of this defamation action. Motion to Quash, at 4, 9. Separate and apart from the Maxwell Action, Plaintiffs Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards (together, "Plaintiffs") deposed Dershowitz in this action on October 15 and 16, 2015. Plaintiffs' counsel inquired in detail about the truth of allegations that she had sex with Dershowitz on multiple occasions when she was a minor. In pursuing this line of questioning, Plaintiffs' counsel relied on documents that were not available at the time when they filed the initial pleading asserting false and outrageous allegations against Dershowitz. This questioning shows that — contrary to assertions in the Motion to Quash — the subpoena issued to seeks testimony and documents that are directly relevant to this lawsuit. Dershowitz must be permitted to test the veracity of allegations against him. For the reasons set forth above and in his Opposition, Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court enter an order that (1) denies request to quash the subpoena issued by Dershowitz; and (2) denies request for a protective order that would modify the subpoena. 3 EFTA00606795 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas E. Scott Thomas E. Scott, Esq. Florida Bar No. 149100 Thomas.scott@csklegal.com Steven R. Safra, Esq. Florida Bar No. 057028 Steven.safra@csklegal.com COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Dadeland Centre II, 14th Floor 9150 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Phone: (305) 350-5300 Fax: (305) 373-2294 Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice) rsimpson@ wileyrein.com Mary E. Soda (pro hac vice) mborja@wileyrein.com Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice) aeiler@wileyrein.com WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 719-7000 Fax: (202) 719-7049 Counsel for Alan M. Dershowitz 4 EFTA00606796 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail (email) at email address: jsx esearcylaw.com, mep @searcylaw .com, scarolateam@searcylaw.com to: Jack Scarola, Esq, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, and I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Broward County by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal this 26th day of October, 2015 . By: s/Thomas E. Scott THOMAS E. SCOTT FBN: 149100 5 EFTA00606797 EXHIBIT A EFTA00606798 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 12 United States District Court Southern District of New York COMPLAINT EFTA00606799 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 12 NATURE OF THE ACTION JURISDICTION AND VENUE EFTA00606800 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 12 PARTIES = FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS EFTA00606801 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 12 = = EFTA00606802 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09121115 Page 5 of 12 EFTA00606803 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 12 against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue." claims are obvious lies." EFTA00606804 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 12 The New York Daily News EFTA00606805 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 12 COUNT I DEFAMATION EFTA00606806 Case 1:15-cv-07433 Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 12 EFTA00606807 EFTA00606808 EFTA00606809 EFTA00606810