Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00333.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 50 performed. Accordingly, any documentation of sexual assault is necessarily akin to a medical record, and, therefore, precluded under the Court’s April 21, 2016 Order. 5. Information Sought in Interrogatory No. 14 related to Ms. Giuffre’s Sexual Abuse is Protected by Florida Statutes Finally, this abuse took place in Florida, and information relating to those events is protected from disclosure by law. Florida statutes protect “[a]ny information in a videotaped statement of a minor who is alleged to be or who is a victim of sexual battery . . . which reveals that minor’s identity.” Fla. Stat. § 119.071. Additionally, Fla. Stat. § 985.036 protects records where a juvenile is a victim of a crime. Further, Fla. Stat § 794.026 creates a civil right of action against an individual who communicates to others, identifying information concerning the victim of a sexual offense. Additionally, Second, Fla. Stat. § 985.04 and Fla. Stat. § 985.054 make juvenile law enforcement records confidential from members of the public, and states that information obtained by a law enforcement agent participating in the assessment of a juvenile is confidential. Finally, certain of the police reports implicate Ms. Giuffre’s involvement with the Florida Department of Children and Families, see e.g., GM_00750, and if such reports are part of the State’s Department of Children and Families’ records, they are confidential pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 39.202(6). While Defendant, a sex abuser of minors, says that the Protective Order is all the privacy Ms. Giuffre needs regarding being raped as a 14 year old, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Florida statutes, and case law say otherwise. Indeed, Defendant is engaging in double-speak on the Protective Order: her joint defense partner Alan Dershowitz is attempting, through his baseless motion to intervene, to challenge the confidential designations of various documents in the case, and strip away the Protective Order’s protections. Finally, Defendant incorrectly states “[n]Jone of this illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or 24