HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg
1.78 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court motion response)
File Size:
1.78 MB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a response in the case Edwards v. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072). It details discovery disputes between victims' counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and the Government regarding the production of documents and the attempt to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case in 2014. The text highlights the Government's delay tactics and eventual refusal to stipulate the addition of new victims.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bradley Edwards | Attorney/Plaintiff |
Listed in case title; counsel for victims pressing the Government for stipulations.
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant |
Listed in case title as opposing party.
|
| Paul Cassell | Attorney |
Co-counsel with Edwards; contacted Government counsel regarding adding victims.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Victim |
Identified as 'Jane Doe No. 3'; Edwards and Cassell sought to add her to the case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Refers to US Federal Prosecutors/Government counsel involved in discovery disputes.
|
|
| The Court |
Judicial body overseeing the case and issuing rulings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
June 2013
Summer 2014
Edwards and Cassell request to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case.
N/A
Relationships (2)
Referred to jointly as 'Edwards and Cassell' acting on behalf of victims.
Edwards sought to add her to the case as a victim.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims... while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the Court."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg
Quote #1
"Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg
Quote #2
"“Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this stage of the litigation.”"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,040 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 7 of 20
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 7 of 20
followed (see generally Docket Entry or “DE” 225-1 at 4-5), ultimately leading to a further
Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The
Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE
225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the
Court. The Government claimed that these pages were “privileged” for various reasons,
attaching an abbreviated privilege log.
Court ruling in June 2013 that the Government should produce documents. DE 189. The
Government then produced about 1,500 pages of largely irrelevant materials to the victims (DE
225-1 at 5), while simultaneously submitting 14,825 pages of relevant materials under seal to the
Court. The Government claimed that these pages were “privileged” for various reasons,
attaching an abbreviated privilege log.
While these discovery issues were pending, in the summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell,
contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the
case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as “Jane Doe No.
3”). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have
avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the
Government – as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim – did not
respond to counsel’s request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having
had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was
seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims’ counsel might need
to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a
motion immediately, victims’ counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a
stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 – more than four months after the initial
request for a stipulated joinder into the case – the Government tersely indicated its objection,
without indicating any reason: “Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this
stage of the litigation.” See DE 291 at 5.
contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two additional victims to the
case, including Ms. Virginia Giuffre (who was identified in court pleadings as “Jane Doe No.
3”). Edwards and Cassell sought to have her added to the case via stipulation, which would have
avoided the need to include any detailed facts about her abuse. Weeks went by and the
Government – as it had done on a similar request for a stipulation to add another victim – did not
respond to counsel’s request for a stipulation. Finally, on December 10, 2014, despite having
had four months to provide a position, the Government responded by email to counsel that it was
seeking more time, indicating that the Government understood that victims’ counsel might need
to file a motion with the court on the matter immediately. DE 291 at 3-5. Rather than file a
motion immediately, victims’ counsel waited and continued to press the Government for a
stipulation. See id. at 5. Finally, on December 23, 2014 – more than four months after the initial
request for a stipulated joinder into the case – the Government tersely indicated its objection,
without indicating any reason: “Our position is that we oppose adding new petitioners at this
stage of the litigation.” See DE 291 at 5.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document