HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010762.jpg

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 6 of 20 when the medical condition becomes an integral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking some of the materials from the records at issue somehow requires that these stricken materials be kept confidential in this case. Dershowitz’s argument misunderstands both the scope of Judge Marra’s order and its effect in this case. His argument rests on a truncated — and misleading -- description of the events surrounding Judge Marra’s ruling striking certain documents. A more complete description makes clear that Judge Marra has not determined the documents are somehow “confidential” even in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act case — much less in this separate state defamation action. Edwards and Cassell filed the federal case pro bono on behalf of two young women who were sexually abused as underage girls by Dershowitz’s close personal friend — Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Edwards and Casell filed a petition to enforce the rights of “Jane Doe No. 1” and ‘Jane Doe No. 2” under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that the Government had failed to provide them rights with regard to a plea arrangement it was pursuing with Epstein. Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.). In the course of that case, on October 11, 2011, the victims filed discovery requests with the Government, including requests specifically seeking information about Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and others. Further efforts from the Government to avoid any discovery HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010762