HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015622.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 2 of 20

these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadcast worldwide, but also in his pleadings before this Court and in recent depositions. Indeed, Dershowitz said in his media interviews that he wants “everything to be made public” and implied that Edwards and Cassell had something to hide. Accordingly, Dershowitz has failed to carry his heavy burden to justify sealing these presumptively-public documents.

I. DERSHOWITZ HAS NOT JUSTIFIED SEALING ALLEGED DEFAMATORY RECORDS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS DEFAMATION CASE.

In his motion, Dershowitz never recounts the heavy burden that he must carry to seal the records at issue. To be sure, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 allows for the sealing of “confidential” materials. But the Rule begins by recounting the overarching principle that “[t]he public shall have access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as provided below.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(a). This rule is a codification of the Florida Supreme Court’s admonition that a “strong presumption of openness exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public examination.” Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) (emphasis added). In light of this presumption of openness, “[t]he burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure.” Id. To obtain a sealing order, the party seeking sealing must carry a “heavy burden.” Id.

Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to acknowledge these well-settled principles. More important, he even fails to cite (much less discuss) the limited substantive exceptions to this general principle of access – and which specific exception he believes applies to this

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015622