HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010761.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 5 of 20 Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s coconspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the [Non-Prosecution Agreement] on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential coconspirators of Epstein.” Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement witha provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity wouldhave been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Dershowitz Counterclaim at § 15 (quoting Joinder Motion at 4). Remarkably, having quoted at length from the Joinder Motion in his Counterclaim in this case, Dershowitz now seeks to have that very same language from the Joinder Motion deemed “confidential” and sealed. Compare Counterclaim at 15 (block quotation above) with Motion to Determine Confidentiality, Exhibit A at 4 (composite exhibit with proposed “confidential” document that includes paragraph beginning “[o]ne such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s . . . .”). Dershowitz cannot come before this Court and file a counterclaim seeking damages from Edwards and Cassell for alleged defamatory statements and then ask to have those very same statements placed under seal as “confidential.” See Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So.2d at 119 (“although generally protected by one’s privacy right, medical reports and history are no longer protected HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010761