HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
I. DERSHOWITZ MUST BE ALLOWED TO SHARE ROBERTS’S DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPT WITH THOSE WORKING ON DERSHOWITZ’S BEHALF AS
PART OF THIS LITIGATION.
Dershowitz asks the Court to modify the Confidentiality Order to allow Dershowitz to
use the transcript in ways necessary for his defense including sharing the transcript with any
counsel and other legal support, experts, consultants, insurers, and others typically permitted
access to supposedly confidential information in addition to using it with potential witnesses and
others as deemed necessary in the professional judgment of his counsel as set forth above.
Dershowitz and his attorneys are aware of and will abide by the Florida Rules of Professional
Conduct, including its comments, regarding the handling of any information deemed by this
Court to be confidential within the limitations of the applicable rules.
Hr. ALLOWING DERSHOWITZ TO USE THE DEPOSITION FOR THE LIMITED
PURPOSES OF HIS DEFENSE IS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW.
Florida law requires that any sealing order be the least restrictive means necessary to
accomplish its purpose. The Florida Supreme Court held in Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), that a sealing order can be entered only where “no
reasonable alternative is available to accomplish the desired result, and, if none exists, the trial
court must use the least restrictive closure necessary to accomplish its purpose.” Jd. at 118
(emphasis added); see also Carter v. Conde Nast Publ’ns, 983 So. 2d 23, 26 (Fla. 5th DCA
2008) (“an order sealing court records must state, inter alia, the particular grounds for making the
court records confidential, that the closure is no broader than necessary, and that there are no less
restrictive measures available.”).
This Court has not set forth any reasons addressing a request by Roberts to seal her
deposition transcript, much less determined that “no reasonable alternative is available” to
accomplish Roberts’s desired result. See News-Press Publ’g Co. v. State, 345 So. 2d 865, 867
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594