HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
1.79 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (response to motion)
File Size:
1.79 MB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal response filed by Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell against Alan Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The text outlines legal exceptions for confidentiality under Florida Judicial Administration rules, arguing that none apply because the case is a defamation action where disclosure is inherent to the proceedings. The filing cites precedents such as Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers and Carnegie v. Tedder to support the argument that defamatory material cannot be sealed.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bradley Edwards | Plaintiff |
Party in the case Edwards vs. Dershowitz; filing a defamation claim.
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant |
Party in the case; filed a defamation counterclaim and a Motion to Determine Confidentiality.
|
| Paul Cassell | Plaintiff/Attorney |
Mentioned as 'Edwards and Cassell'; filing a defamation claim.
|
| Carnegie | Litigant (Case Citation) |
Party in cited case Carnegie v. Tedder.
|
| Tedder | Litigant (Case Citation) |
Party in cited case Carnegie v. Tedder.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. |
Cited in case law Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623'.
|
|
| Florida Courts |
Implied by citations to Fla. R. Jud. Admin and Florida case law.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction implied by case citations and rules (Fla. R. Jud. Admin).
|
Relationships (3)
Case title 'Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz' and mention of opposing defamation claims.
Phrasing 'Edwards and Cassell' regarding the response and claims.
Mention of defamation claim by Cassell and counterclaim by Dershowitz.
Key Quotes (4)
"The only exception that seems to even arguably apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate only where disclosure is 'not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
Quote #1
"Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at the heart of the case."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
Quote #2
"Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is 'inherent' in the case itself."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
Quote #3
"The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized in Carnegie v. Tedder"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,083 characters)
Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 3 of 20
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 3 of 20
case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his
motion.
motion.
The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained
as confidential in order to:
as confidential in order to:
(i) Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly
administration of justice;
(ii) Protect trade secrets;
(iii) Protect a compelling governmental interest;
(iv) Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
(v) Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
(vi) Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a
common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of
proceeding sought to be closed;
(vii) Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United
States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law . . . .
administration of justice;
(ii) Protect trade secrets;
(iii) Protect a compelling governmental interest;
(iv) Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
(v) Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
(vi) Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a
common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of
proceeding sought to be closed;
(vii) Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United
States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law . . . .
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably
apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate
only where disclosure is “not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be
closed” (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action – involving
a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by
Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at
the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is “inherent” in the case itself.
The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized
in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and
counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of
Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably
apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate
only where disclosure is “not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be
closed” (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action – involving
a defamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and a defamation counterclaim by
Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at
the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is “inherent” in the case itself.
The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized
in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and
counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document