HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
1.8 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/response)
File Size:
1.8 MB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a legal response in the defamation case *Edwards v. Dershowitz* (CACE 15-000072). The filing argues against Dershowitz's motion for confidentiality, citing previous orders by Judge Marra in a federal CVRA case. The text explicitly mentions allegations of sexual abuse by Dershowitz against Ms. Giuffre and asserts that previous court orders allow for these factual details to be presented if properly supported.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bradley Edwards | Plaintiff/Attorney |
Listed in case style 'Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz'; co-author of the response.
|
| Paul Cassell | Attorney |
Co-author of the response ('Edwards and Cassells Response').
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant |
Target of the lawsuit; filed a Motion to Determine Confidentiality; accused of sexual abuse.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Perpetrator (Deceased/Mentioned) |
Mentioned in context of 'Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties'.
|
| Judge Marra | Judge |
Federal judge whose previous orders (DE 324, DE 325) are being analyzed and quoted.
|
| Jane Doe 3 | Victim/Witness |
Mentioned as being free to reassert factual details through evidentiary proof.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Victim/Witness |
Referred to as 'Ms. Giuffre'; denied motion to join case but allowed to participate as trial witness; specific mentio...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Respondent in the related CVRA case.
|
|
| Court |
Refers to both the specific court hearing this case and the federal court (Judge Marra).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown
Judge Marra denied Ms. Giuffre's motion to join the case but allowed her participation as a witness.
Federal Court
Judge Marra
Ms. Giuffre
Unknown
Victims recently refiled documents omitting stricken portions per DE 325.
Court
Victims
Relationships (3)
Case style: Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Reference to 'factual details about Dershowitz’s sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre'
Edwards and Cassells Response
Key Quotes (5)
"Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
Quote #1
"The necessary 'participation' of [Ms. Giuffre] . . . in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported – and relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative – testimony"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
Quote #2
"Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that 'Judge Marra’s Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed...'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
Quote #3
"factual details about Dershowitz’s sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
Quote #4
"nothing in Judge Marra’s Order could render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl around Edwards and Cassell’s good faith basis for filing the allegations"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,091 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 10 of 20
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records
Page 10 of 20
Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that the details
involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” DE 324 at 5 (emphasis
in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that “Jane Doe 3 is free
to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims]
demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented
for the Court’s consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the case,
but allowed her to participate as trial witness: “The necessary ‘participation’ of [Ms. Giuffre] . . .
in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported – and relevant, admissible, and
non-cumulative – testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits
supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests.” DE 324 at 8 (emphasis
deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims “may re-refile these
documents omitting the stricken portions.” DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the
documents.
involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” DE 324 at 5 (emphasis
in original). While Judge Marra struck those allegations, he emphasized that “Jane Doe 3 is free
to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should [the victims]
demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented
for the Court’s consideration. Judge Marra then denied Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join the case,
but allowed her to participate as trial witness: “The necessary ‘participation’ of [Ms. Giuffre] . . .
in this case can be satisfied by offering . . . properly supported – and relevant, admissible, and
non-cumulative – testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial . . . or affidavits
supported in support [of] the relevancy of discovery requests.” DE 324 at 8 (emphasis
deleted). In a supplemental order, Judge Marra stated that the victims “may re-refile these
documents omitting the stricken portions.” DE 325. The victims have recently refiled the
documents.
In light of this history, Dershowitz is flatly incorrect when he asserts that “Judge Marra’s
Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the
public docket.” Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits
factual details about Dershowitz’s sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to
pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra’s Order could
render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl
around Edwards and Cassell’s good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not
binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. Giuffre (the moving
Order appropriately precludes the unredacted documents from being re-filed in this case on the
public docket.” Confidentiality Motion at 3. To the contrary, the Order specifically permits
factual details about Dershowitz’s sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre to be presented in regard to
pertinent matters in the federal CVRA case. And certainly nothing in Judge Marra’s Order could
render those documents confidential in this state defamation case, where the central issues swirl
around Edwards and Cassell’s good faith basis for filing the allegations. Indeed, the order is not
binding in any way in this case, because it is res judicata only as to Ms. Giuffre (the moving
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document