HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
2.34 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing exhibit
File Size:
2.34 MB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm SDBS to Thomas E. Scott, Jr., regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The letter aggressively challenges the defense's discovery responses, accusing them of 'word play and gamesmanship' regarding document production, metadata, and definitions. The sender demands immediate production of documents and rejects the defense's attempts to limit discovery to a narrow timeframe, arguing that Dershowitz's alleged defamation and public denials were broad and unrestricted by time.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas E. Scott, Jr. | Attorney |
Recipient of the letter; Counsel for the Defendant (Dershowitz)
|
| Edwards | Plaintiff |
Named in case caption: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
|
| Cassell | Plaintiff |
Named in case caption: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Defendant |
Subject of the lawsuit; accused of making defamatory statements and public denials of misconduct
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SDBS |
Law firm sending the letter (Logo at bottom)
|
|
| FLSD |
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (mentioned in docket header)
|
|
| First Healthcare Corp. |
Mentioned in legal citation regarding gamesmanship
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (3)
Case caption: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Case caption: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Recipient of letter discussing 'Your responses' regarding Dershowitz's obligations
Key Quotes (5)
"Your objection to the production of metadata has no legal foundation."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
Quote #1
"Florida courts frown on parsing and gamesmanship."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
Quote #2
"Repeated assertions that statements were made by Mr. Dershowitz 'upon information and belief' is an example of prohibited 'word play.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
Quote #3
"The Rules of Civil Procedure require production and not just a commitment of production at some unspecified future date."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
Quote #4
"Your repeated attempts to restrict discovery to a narrow timeframe, fail to account for the fact that this is a defamation action arising out of broad defamatory statements made by Mr. Dershowitz..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,547 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 32 of 34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 4
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 4
WL 1328259, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("Courts have long construed the term 'control' as meaning more than simple 'possession.' 'Control has been construed broadly by the courts as the legal right, authority, or practical ability to obtain the materials sought upon demand.'"). See also Frantz v. Golebiewski, 407 So.2d 283, 285 n.4 (Fla. 3 DCA 1981) ("Interpretations of the federal rule are persuasive in considering its Florida equivalent.").
While your responses purport to recognize the obligation to produce documents subject to Mr. Dershowitz's "control", there are qualifications in the responses that would appear to contradict that recognition. Your objection to the production of metadata has no legal foundation.
Word Play and Gamesmanship
You will note that we do not include page after page of definitions. I believe that any lawyer reasonably fluent in English can carry out his or her duty to construe interrogatories and requests for production in the broad and liberal manner intended by the rules. Florida courts frown on parsing and gamesmanship. See, e.g. First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (chastising counsel who did not turn over "event" reports because plaintiff requested "incident" reports as engaged in "little more than a semantic shell game.").
Repeated assertions that statements were made by Mr. Dershowitz "upon information and belief" is an example of prohibited "word play." That qualification has no bearing on the Defendant's discovery obligations.
"Will Produce"
The Rules of Civil Procedure require production and not just a commitment of production at some unspecified future date. If the documents you intend to produce are available for inspection and copying now as they are required to be, we are prepared to pick them up immediately. If they are not immediately available, when will they be?
Timeframe Objections
Your repeated attempts to restrict discovery to a narrow timeframe, fail to account for the fact that this is a defamation action arising out of broad defamatory statements made by Mr. Dershowitz impugning the honesty and integrity of the Plaintiffs without any limitations as to a specific time or circumstance. Mr. Dershowitz has also made broad public denials of misconduct unrestricted to any specific timeframe. We are entitled to
SDBS
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document