HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594.jpg
1.54 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / motion (page 5)
File Size:
1.54 MB
Summary
This page is an excerpt from a legal motion filed by Alan Dershowitz, arguing that he must be permitted to share the deposition transcript of 'Roberts' (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) with his legal team, experts, and insurers. The document cites Florida law and previous court cases (Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers) to argue that sealing orders must be the 'least restrictive means necessary' and claims the court has not justified sealing Roberts's transcript. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant/Litigant |
Seeking court permission to share Roberts's deposition transcript with his legal team and insurers for his defense.
|
| Roberts | Plaintiff/Witness (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) |
Her deposition transcript is the subject of the confidentiality dispute; she requested to seal the transcript.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Florida Supreme Court |
Cited regarding case law on sealing orders (Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Florida law and Rules of Professional Conduct are cited as governing principles.
|
Relationships (1)
Dershowitz is arguing for access to Roberts's deposition transcript to use in his defense against her wishes to seal it.
Key Quotes (4)
"DERSHOWITZ MUST BE ALLOWED TO SHARE ROBERTS’S DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT WITH THOSE WORKING ON DERSHOWITZ’S BEHALF AS PART OF THIS LITIGATION."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594.jpg
Quote #1
"Dershowitz asks the Court to modify the Confidentiality Order to allow Dershowitz to use the transcript in ways necessary for his defense"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594.jpg
Quote #2
"Florida law requires that any sealing order be the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish its purpose."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594.jpg
Quote #3
"This Court has not set forth any reasons addressing a request by Roberts to seal her deposition transcript"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,067 characters)
II. 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.
III. 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.” Id. 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
5
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015594
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document