Thomas E. Scott
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Alan M. Dershowitz
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Opposing counsel co counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan M. Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-02-03 | N/A | Electronic filing and service of legal documents through the Clerk of Broward County | Broward County, Florida | View |
| 2016-02-03 | N/A | Submission of legal document | Miami, Florida / Washington... | View |
| 2015-02-25 | N/A | Correspondence regarding discovery disputes in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. | N/A | View |
| 2015-02-23 | N/A | Service of legal documents via E-Serve to Plaintiffs' counsel. | Miami, Florida (Origin) | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015655.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service dated February 8, 2016, signed by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. It certifies the electronic service of a legal filing to counsel for the defendant, Alan Dershowitz (represented by Cole, Scott & Kissane and Wiley Rein), and counsel for the plaintiffs (represented by Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley). The document lists specific attorneys and their email addresses.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015614.jpg
This email from Susan Moss, Judicial Assistant to Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV, conveys court rulings in the case of Edward & Cassell v. Dershowitz. The judge quashed a subpoena against the law firm Boies Schiller but granted parts of a subpoena regarding 'Jane Doe #3,' while establishing strict protocols for a future deposition, including a 4-hour limit and the requirement of a Defendant-paid special master to rule on objections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015612.jpg
A legal Certificate of Service dated April 9, 2015, signed by Sigrid S. McCawley. The document certifies the electronic service of legal filings to attorneys representing Alan Dershowitz (Wiley Rein, LLP) and attorneys for the Plaintiffs (Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.), as well as attorneys at Cole, Scott & Kissane. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015597.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service dated February 3, 2016, filed in Broward County, Florida. It certifies that Thomas E. Scott electronically served legal documents to several prominent attorneys involved in Epstein-related litigation, including Jack Scarola, Bradley Edwards, Paul Cassell, and Sigrid McCawley. The document lists the specific email and physical addresses for each recipient.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015596.jpg
This is the signature page (page 7) of a legal document dated February 3, 2016. It lists two law firms, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. (Miami) and Wiley Rein LLP (Washington DC), serving as counsel for Alan M. Dershowitz. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014116.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, regarding discovery disputes in the case Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The text criticizes the Defendant (Dershowitz) for providing evasive, incomplete, or legally unfounded responses to interrogatories concerning his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, statements made about Bradley Edwards, and potential witnesses. It specifically notes that Dershowitz refused to provide details based on flight logs or the deposition status of Jane Doe #3, and lists Thomas and Joanne Ashe as individuals identified by the Defendant.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, addressed to Thomas E. Scott, Jr. regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The text outlines legal arguments concerning discovery abuses, specifically arguing that one cannot claim privilege or undue burden for documents that do not exist, and providing a broad legal definition of 'control' over documents to include those held by third parties like attorneys or accountants. The document was entered on the FLSD Docket on March 24, 2015, and bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014111.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM). It certifies that attorneys Thomas E. Scott and Steven R. Safra of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. served legal documents on behalf of their client, Alan M. Dershowitz, to plaintiff's counsel Jack Scarola via E-Serve on February 23, 2015. The document bears a House Oversight stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014110.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) entered on March 24, 2015. It lists the legal counsel representing Alan M. Dershowitz, including attorneys from Wiley Rein LLP, Sweder & Ross, LLP, and Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. The text confirms the defendant's agreement to produce responsive, non-privileged documents.
Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Legal arguments regarding discovery disputes, specifically asserting privilege for non-existent documents and defining custody/control of documents.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Letter criticizing the Defendant's discovery responses, specifically regarding 'control' of documents, metadata, semantic gamesmanship, and timeframe objections.
Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Legal arguments regarding insufficient and evasive responses to interrogatories by the Defendant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity