HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010849.jpg

00:30:37 00:30:39 00:30:40 00:30:41 00:30:43 00:30:46 00:30:49 00:30:51 oon Ooh OD = 00:30:54 00:30:56 1 0 00:30:58 1 1 00:31:04 1 2 00;31:01 1 3 00:31:01 1 4 00:31:04 1 5 00:31:04 1 6 00:31:05 1 7 00:34:10 1 8 00:31:12 1 9 00:31:15 20 00:34:15 21 00:31:18 22 00:31:20 23 0031.25 24 oo:3126 25 00:31:27 90:31:29 00:34:33 00:34:35 00:31:38 00:31:40 00:31:43 ON OOP wWH = 00:34:46 is) 00:34:47 oo31:s0 10 oo31:63 11 oo:31:55 12 ooarsa 13 oo:3201 14 oo:se0s 15 oo:32.08 16 vo-a200 17 oo:3211 18 003212 19 oo:3213 20 oosa1s 214 ooz219 22 oo3210 23 oo3219 24 003220 25 9 of 46 sheets 184 recollection of talking te, you know, anyone who is -- who was in his firm. Q. Okay. A. I--I think the record should be clear, I'm -- I'm an attorney and a law professor in Salt Lake City, Utah, and my understanding, he's an attorney here in Florida. So I don't ordinarily interact with -- with, you know, attorneys in Florida, other than the ones that I'm interacting with on -- on this case. MR. SCAROLA: Which is now occurring on a very regular basis. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell -- MR. SCOTT: No teaming, Mr. Scarola, please. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q._ -- did -- didn't you testify yesterday that the fact that Mr. Josefsberg's firm had filed a complaint against Miss Roberts, who is also your client, to be significant to your evaluation of the case? A. Yes. Q. And if it -- if that was significant to evaluation of the case, why are you telling us you don't normally talk with attorneys in Florida? Doesn't he represent -- at one point, represent the same client? A. Right. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 185 Q. And so wouldn't it be natural for you to be speaking with -- at Jeast within the realm of something one might expect for you to speak? A. If I were a solo representative of Virginia Roberts, that would be the case, but I think you're obviously aware that I have co-counsel on this case, and there are other attorneys who are also participating in this matter. So I think it would be obvious that if there's a division of labor, it might not be along the lines that you're suggesting. And I can't go any further without going into work product and other issues surrounding Miss Roberts’ representation. Q. Has Mr. Boies ever told you that he believes Miss Roberts was mistaken in her accusations against Professor Dershowitz? MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. MS. McCAWLEY: Same instruction. THE WITNESS: I'd like to confer with my counsel on a attorney/client privilege issue in connection with that question. MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just write down the question and -- MR. SIMPSON: I'll -- I'll rephrase it. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 00:32:20 00:32:22 00:32:25 00:32:30 00:32:37 00:32:39 00:32:39 00:32:40 00:92:45 oN MO fF WOH = 9 00:32:46 1 0 00:32:52 1 1 00:32:56 1 2 00:32:58 1 3 00:33:02 1 4 00:33:03 1 5 00:33:04 16 o0:3304 17 00:33:07 18 00:93:08 19 00:33:13 20 00:33:15, 21 00:33:19 22 00:33:19 23 00:33:19 24 00:33:21 25 00:33:22 00:33:26 00:33:27 00:33:30, 00:33:34 00:33:35 00:33:37 00:33:46 00:33:53 00:33:55 oN Mm OA & ON = is) 10 00:33:58 1 1 00:34:02 1 2 00:34:07 1 3 00:34:10 1 4 00:34:12 1 5 00:34:14 1 6 00:34:16 1 7 00:34:20 1 8 00:34:23 20 00:34:26 21 00:34:30 22 00:34:34 23 00:34:37 24 00:34:40 25 186 BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Have you ever -- I'll rephrase the question. Have you ever discussed with Mr. Boies his views as to whether or not Miss Roberts is mistaken in her allegations against Professor Dershowitz? MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection. Same instruction. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Prior to December 30th of 2014, had you personally reviewed any of the flight logs that had been referred to in the testimony in this case? A. All right? Q. My only question is whether you personally reviewed them. A. Yes. Q. What flight logs have you reviewed; how would you describe them? A. Both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 that were shown to Mr. Dershowitz yesterday. Q. If -- I believe those were Exhibits 6 and J -- A. Okay. Q. — -- but can we agree that flight logs were marked as exhibits? ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 187 A. Right. The two composite exhibits of flight logs I had examined previously. Q. Okay. So the same documents that Professor Dershowitz was shown at his deposition; is that right? A. That's my recollection, yes. Q. Okay. When did you review those? A. So one of the reviews was in May 2014. There may have also been an earlier review at an earlier ~~ earlier time, but I definitely remember reviewing them in May -- approximately May 2014. Q. Would -- do you -- isn't it true that those flight logs support Professor Dershowitz's testimony that he was never on a plane with Virginia Roberts? A. No. Q. How do they not? What is -- what is the explanation for your conclusion in that regard? A. Right. We talked about this yesterday, so I'll incorporate to speed things up some of the testimony that I gave yesterday. What the flight logs showed was, to my mind, evidence of potential doctoring, evidence of -- of selective presentation of evidence. Mr. Dershowitz had presented to a law enforcement agency, at their request, apparently what I understood to be the -- the -- I understood that he had been requested by a law ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 Page 184 to 187 of 335 10/20/2015 01:08:15 PM HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010849