Event Details

January 01, 1997

Description

Ruling in Carnegie v. Tedder

Participants (2)

Name Type Mentions
Carnegie person 17 View Entity
Tedder person 5 View Entity

Source Documents (1)

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg

Legal Filing (Response to Motion) • 1.79 MB
View

This document is page 3 of a legal response filed by Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell against Alan Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records. The text outlines legal exceptions for confidentiality under Florida Judicial Administration rules, arguing that none apply because the case is a defamation action where disclosure is inherent to the proceedings. The filing cites precedents such as Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers and Carnegie v. Tedder to support the argument that defamatory material cannot be sealed.

Event Metadata

Type
Unknown
Location
Florida (2d DCA)
Significance Score
5/10
Participants
2
Source Documents
1
Extracted
2025-11-19 20:14

Additional Data

Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015623.jpg
Date String
1997

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event