25 ROUGH DRAFT TITLE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROUGH DRAFT TITLE ***ROUGH DRAFT TRANSCRIPT*** CASE NAME: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL vs. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ WITNESS NAME: PAUL G. CASSELL DATE OF DEPOSITION: 10/16/15 This is an unedited, unproofread, uncertified transcript for attorneys' information only. This transcript may NOT be cited in documents or used for examination purposes. following: This raw transcript may contain the 1. Conflicts - an apparently wrong word that has the same stenotype stroke as a less-used word. Conflicts are remedied by the reporter in editing. 2. Untranslates/Misstrokes - a stenotype stroke appears on the screen as the result of the computer dictionary not having the same stroke previously identified or a misstroke or partial translation of the word. 3. Reporter's notes - a parenthetical word or phrase from the reporter. Since the reporter must write each word instantly, a misunderstood word or phrase will not be apparent until some time later. Reporter's notes provide the opportunity to correct such situations. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 EFTA00607219 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the video record. Today is Friday, the 16th day of October, 2015. The time is 1:33 p.m. We are here at 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 1850, in Fort Lauderdale Florida for the purpose of taking the videotaped deposition of Paul G. Cassell . The case is Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell versus Alan M. Dershowitz. The court reporter is Terry Tomaselli and the videographer is Don Savoy, both from Esquire Deposition Solutions. Will counsel please announce their appearances for the record. MR. SCAROLA: Jack Scarola appearing on behalf of Bradley Edwards and Professor Paul Cassell . With me is Joni J. Jones from the Utah Attorney General 's Office. MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid McCawley on behalf of from Boies Schiller & Flexner. MR. SIMPSON: Richard Simpson on behalf of Defendant and Counter -Claim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz. And with me is my colleague Nicole Richardson and Thomas Scott from the firm of Cole Scott & Kissane. Ms. Richardson and I are from the firm of Wiley Rein. MR. SWEDER: Kenneth Sweder from the firm of ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607220 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sweeder & Ross for Professor Dershowitz. Thereupon, PAUL G. CASSELL, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: I do. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Good morning or good afternoon, I guess? A. Afternoon, yes. Q. If I ask any questions today that you can't understand, would you please let me know and I'll attempt to rephrase or clarify it? A. Sure. Q. You're a former United States District Judge; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. When were you a judge? A. From about 2002 'til about November 2007. Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first President Bush? A. Yes. Q. Uh, second President Bush? A. Second President Bush, yes. Q. And then after resigning as a judge, you ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 became a professor at the University of Utah; is that correct? A. Yeah I was professor -- excuse me -- before I was a professor in the evening hours while I was a judge from 2002 to 2007. And then I resumed full time teaching at the University of Utah in around November of 2007 when I left the bench. Q. Okay. And since you've left the bench, have you also been affiliated with a law firm? A. Yes. Q. Could you tell me what that affiliation is what -- A. Sure. I'm a special counsel with Hatch James and Dodge. It's a law firm, small boutique litigation law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, and I occasionally do cases with them. Q. Is it fair to say that since 2007, since resigning as a judge, you've been engaged at least on a part-time basis in the practice of law? A. Yes. Q. And, in particular, in one of the cases that's at issue here, what has been referred to as the underlying CVRA case; you're familiar with that case? A. Yeah. Let me be clear just the juxtaposition of the causes, the CVRA case is not through Hatch James ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607222 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and Dodge. That's through the University of Utah. I'm pro bono work through the University of Utah. Q. You have entered an appearance in that case? A. Correct. Q. And in order to enter that appearance, you were admitted pro hac vice; is that correct? A. That's right. Q. And to be admitted pro hac vice, you certified that you were familiar with the applicable rules including the rules of the southern district of Florida; is that right? A. That's right. Q. And you're also familiar with the rules of professional responsibility; is that correct? A. Sure. Q. Okay. As a judge, did you ever strike a party's pleadings because they were impertinent, scandalous, irrelevant? A. I don't recall doing that immediately. Q. Okay. To the best of your knowledge, you don't recall any instance of doing that? A. I mean what I did, I think, there were two cases where I referred people to the Bar which was a way of dealing with the pleadings that were inappropriate in those cases. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607223 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. But other than referring the two parties to the Bar, you never entered, to your recollection, striking a party's pleadings; is that right? A. That's right. Q. Okay. I want to ask you a few questions about the issue of striking pleadings. Would you agree with me that courts generally disfavor a motion to strike? A. No. Q. And that striking allegations from a pleading is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice and only when the allegations to be stricken have no possible relation to the controversy? A. I think that's what some courts have said, yes. Q. And is it fair to say -- is that what you represented to the court in response to Professor Dershowitz's application to intervene? A. That's right. Q. And you wouldn't have represented that to the court unless you believed it to be accurate; is that right? A. That's right. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607224 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Would you also agree that if there is any doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in the action, courts will deny the motion? A. That was our position in our response to Professor Dershowitz's motion to strike, yes. Q. And in considering a motion to strike, the court must consider the pleadings in the light most favorable to the party making the pleading, correct? A. Yeah, that's our position, that was our position, yes. Q. Okay. In your view, is it -- for an attorney to ask a leading question at a deposition, does the attorney have to have a good-faith basis to believe that that question is true or the facts assumed in that question are true? A. I mean, that's a broad question, but as a general rule, yeah. Q. As a general rule -- I'm not being very articulate -- A. Yeah. Q. -- you don't ask a leading question about a fact unless you have a good-faith basis to believe that facts is true, correct? A. I think that's right. I mean I don't know if over the last day and a half, you know, narrow questions ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607225 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have been given very long answers. I am assuming you want narrow answers; is that true? Q. Well, that wasn't my question, but why don't we stay on that -- A. I mean, I could discuss that at great length. I didn't know if that's what you wanted me to do. Q. I would like you to give a fair answer to my questions and I'll let you answer your questions and if follow up, I would ask that one at a time for the court reporter. I would ask that you answer the question fairly and I'll try not to interrupt you. And then if you would do your best to answer the questions, and as I said, if you don't understand it, let me know. A. Right. MR. SCAROLA: Excuse me. I'm going to interrupt you for just a moment. Pardon me. There is this page that was placed in front of me, and I don't know whether this was intended as a delivery of something. MR. SCOTT: No. You had asked for a copy of the entry from Professor Dershowitz's book when he made reference to it. I said I'd give you a copy in the last deposition, and that's it. We made a copy of it. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607226 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Thank you. I had also asked for all of the information regarding communications with Rebecca, which I was told that I would get today. Is that available? MR. SCOTT: No. I told you that we would consider if that -- I apologize. I said we will consider that and you can put it in a request and we will respond. THE WITNESS: I would sure like to see that before I answer any more questions. Is that something you could make available? MR. SIMPSON: I don't think that's necessary to answer the questions I'm going to ask. I'm not going to ask you any questions -- I won't ask you any questions about Professor Dershowitz's communications with this Rebecca that you've heard about. You were in the room while he testified, correct? THE WITNESS: Right, but I mean there are there are broader subjects that extend beyond those communications, so if you're going to ask any questions about those broader subjects, I would like to see the communications. That would be helpful to me. BY MR. SIMPSON: ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607227 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I'm just going to ask you questions about the case and about your knowledge, and all I ask is that you give your best answers based on your knowledge. A. And all I ask is, if you're going to ask any questions touching on those communications and I get a chance to take a look at the subjects addressed in those communications -- Q. If I ask you a question that you need to look at something that you've never seen before to answer, why don't you let us know? A. Okay. Will do. Q. What is your understanding of the ethical responsibility of an attorney in signing a pleading to be filed in Federal Court, and let's say in the Southern District of Florida, if that's any different than elsewhere? A. Sure. Q. Just give me your understanding. A. Sure. The obligation is to make sure that it is a good-faith pleading based on the facts and the law as the attorney understands them, and consistently with the obligation of the attorney to zealously represent the position of his client. Q. Okay. Would you agree with me that it would be unethical to use pleadings for an improper purpose, ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607228 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for a purpose other than to advance a cause in litigation? A. Sure. Q. And would you agree with me that it would be unethical to make allegation of misconduct by a person in a pleading if that -- if those allegations were not relevant to the case? A. Sure. Q. And would you agree -- A. Actually, not pertinent to the case. Q. Not pertinent to the case? A. Yeah. And when you say not relevant, obviously, reasonable people can have disagreements about what allegations are relevant to the case or not Q. And my question is that an attorney, it would be unethical, do you agree, for an attorney to sign a pleading where the attorney does not have a good-faith basis that the allegations of misconduct are relevant to the case, are pertinent to the case? A. Pertinent to the case, and as I understand for example under rule 11, the requirement is that the allegations being advanced must not be frivolous. Q. And that there's a good-faith basis for them? A. Well, I mean if you're talking about good faith frivolity, those are I mean, potentially different ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607229 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standards under the law. My understanding is that frivolity is the standard for, for example, rule 11 sanctions. Q. Is it unethical to include, in your opinion, to include allegations in a pleading for the purpose of generating publicity? A. If that's the only purpose, sure, that it would be inappropriate. Q. And is it unethical to make allegations without having done a reasonable investigation to satisfy -- for the attorney to satisfy himself or herself that there's a factual basis for the allegations? A. Something along those lines, sure. Q. As a general matter, you agree with that proposition? A. Yes, sure. Q. Would you agree that the scope of the investigation, the reasonable investigation an attorney must do, varies depending upon the nature of the allegations being made? A. Sure, yes. Q. Let me finish -- we are both speaking at the same time A. Sure. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607230 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. -- so let me finish -- A. Sure. I just want to make sure you get an opportunity to ask as many questions as you want so. Q. Okay. And I appreciate that, but the court reporter can't take down both of us at once. So we just need to speak one at a time, but I appreciate that. A. Good. Q. I believe the last question I was asking you about whether the scope of the investigation, what reasonably required of an attorney varies depending upon the nature of the allegations being made. I think you said, yes; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And could you explain how, what in your understanding of how -- A. Sure. I mean, obviously, they are going to be some cases that are very complicated factually. More investigation would be appropriate there. There can be some situations that very simple factually, less investigation would be factually necessary there. Same points about legal issues, too, some cases are complex legally, some cases are simple legally. The more legal investigation would be required for the more complex cases. MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , I know it is ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607231 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a little bit unnatural for you to be responding to questions that are being asked immediately to your right and not be looking directly at the examiner the entire time, but because this is being videotaped, it might be helpful if you can, to the extent that you're able, to look into the camera so that the jury for whom this may be played -- THE WITNESS: I see. MR. SCAROLA: -- at a later time gets to see your full face. THE WITNESS: All right. I hope you won't consider me rude then -- MR. SIMPSON: I will not consider -- it's good advice from your counsel and I will not consider you rude. THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I want to ask you some more questions about the scope of investigation. Would you agree that an allegation of serious misconduct by another person generally requires more investigation than a lesser serious type of allegation? A. Sure. That's a fair statement. Q. And so, for example, before accusing a person ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607232 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of engaging in criminal misconduct, the attorney needs to do a thorough investigation; is that right? A. Yeah, under the circumstances, sure. I should say in light of the circumstances, obviously, you know, different kinds of cases can have different circumstances. Q. Okay. Is one of the considerations that goes into that how much -- whether there's time pressure to get the pleading on file? A. Sure. That would be one of the factors. Q. And how much time the attorney has to investigate the facts? A. Yes. That would be one of the factors as well. Q. Okay. And so before making -- where an attorney's client has no pressing need to get a pleading on file immediately, and the pleading is going to include serious allegations of misconduct by another person, an ethical attorney will take the time needed to do a full investigation; is that fair? A. That's fair, and the converse of your proposition is also fair. For example, if a client has a pending discovery dispute in front of a judge that could be ruled on any day, that would be an exigency that would require pleadings to be filed more quickly ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607233 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 than -- than otherwise. Q. And if the dispute concerned, for example, a specific discovery issue, would you expect the response to be directed to that issue? A. I would expect that the record would be built so that it would be available for the discovery issue, yes. Q. Okay. I am going to ask the reporter to mark as Cassell -- am I pronouncing your name correctly? A. Yes, it's Cassell, yes. Q. Okay. Could I ask the reporter to mark as Cassell Exhibit 1 -- I will hand that to the reporter. (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit No. 1 - A description was marked for identification.) BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me identify that for the record. I may want to mark two things. A. Okay. Q. Exhibit 1 is documented Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. Dershowitz, and I'm going to ask the reporter to mark another exhibit at the same time. This will be Exhibit 2, and this is a document entitled Jane Doe Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4's motion pursuant to rule 21 for joinder in action. Both cases having been filed ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607234 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 versus the United States. This is number 2. (A Plaintiff's A Defendant's I.D. Exhibit No. 2 - A description was marked for identification.) BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Cassell , do you have those documents in front of you? A. I do. Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you first about Exhibit 2 before 1, since exhibit 2 is first in chronological order. A. Yes. Q. Is this the motion for joinder that you filed on behalf of the parties then known as Jane Doe Number 3 and Jane Doe Number 4 in what was called the CVRA action? A. This is the joinder motion, yes. Q. Okay. And if you look at the last page before the certificate of service -- A. Yes. Q. -- over on page 12, it shows the document being signed by Bradley J. Edwards and then it says and Paul G. Cassell , pro hac vice, S.J. Queeny [sic] College of Law A. Quinney. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607235 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your signature to the document? A. That's -- that's indicating not my signature, but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments made in the document, yes. Q. Much more articulate statement than I. I simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of the rules, vouching for this document? A. Yes, I was vouching for this document completely. Q. Okay. And you list here your address as being at the college of law at the University of Utah with no qualification. If you compare that to the next exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually -- A. Yes. Q. -- your signature has a footnote that says, this daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only, and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the university of Utah; do you see that? A. I do see that. Q. Why was that footnote not included on the first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607236 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is it requires, under the word programing, you have to to have different sections in the document because otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see. Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the University of Utah signature block is, for example, it becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a different section and then once you have a different section you can establish a new number and a new nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star footnote on it. Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the as filed original document, could conclude that the University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing behind this pleading? A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607237 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way that works is, people know that when, for example, you know, a Professor speaks from the university, they are giving their own point of view. The -- a school like the University of Utah has, gosh, several hundred faculty members, if not more, and so any time a member of the University of Utah speaks, they are giving their views on the subject. There may be a range of views. Some Professors at the university of Utah may be in favor of crime victim rights. Other Professors may be opposed to crime victim rights. Young people generally jump to the conclusion that just because they are hearing a Professor from a particular school speak, that that necessarily means that they are saying something that the university endorses. Q. If that's true, why do you include the footnote on some pleadings? A. Well, I included the footnote in this particular case, the dean at the law school said, hey, you know, it might be useful just to drop a footnote in just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding and I said, sure, I would be glad to do that. And so I think pleadings, in this case leading up to this, had the star footnote. Apparently on the signature block had got dropped out. And then we were able to fix that in a couple of days on this one. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607238 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So is it accurate that after you filed what's Exhibit 2, that the dean of the law school asked you to file a corrected version with the footnote? A. No. That misunderstands what I said. Early on, just in talking -- I do a lot pro bono litigation for crime victims all over the country, and I do that, that's one of the reasons I'm at the University of Utah. They have been very supportive of my pro bono work in this case as well as in other cases, and so the dean said, well, one of the things just might be helpful is to drop a footnote. I don't think it was required that I drop the footnote, nobody suggested it would be useful to drop the footnote, and so I agreed to do that in this case and in other cases as well, but somehow in this particular pleading, the -- as I say, the signature block possibly was a cut-and-paste from an earlier pleading in the case, possibly it was some issue involving that section feature of the word processing program. The star footnote had dropped off. And so once I realized that without anyone calling that to my attention when I looked at the brief a couple of days after we filed it, and said, oh, I need to fix that and did, indeed, fix that as quickly as I could. Q. What was the context in which the dean asked ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607239 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you as a practice to drop the footnote; was it in connection with this case or some other circumstance? A. It was -- as I recall, it was several years earlier. I don't know. Maybe a year or two earlier than this particular litigation, from what I remember. If I looked at some of my other pro bono cases around the country, we might be able to get a sharper time frame on that. I've done pro bono crime victims in a lot of cases. And the dean just thought it might be useful to have that kind of a footnote to avoid any misunderstanding. Q. Would you agree with me that in order to allow your name to be listed as counsel on this pleading, that you were required to have a sufficient basis for the allegations based on what you knew as of December 30th, 2014? A. Sure. I think that's fair. Obviously, I imagine one of the issues we are going to discuss here today is what is a sufficient basis for filing a pleading like that. So, yeah, in general, of course, we had to have a sufficient basis for filing something like this and I firmly believe that we did. Q. And to put a point on my question, the way in which to measure the knowledge is as of December 30th, 2014, so the facts that came to your attention after ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607240 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that date, by definition, could have been part of what you were relying on to allow your name to be listed as counsel on this document, correct? A. That's right. With regard to this document, we would be looking at knowledge on or before December 30th, 2014. Q. Would you turn to page 4 of the document, first full paragraph on the page, the second sentence. Actually, third sentence, you say: In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe Number 3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye witness to the sexual abuse, et cetera. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Who were the other minors? A. Well, one of the ways -- you want some documentation of that? Q. I want to know: You made an allegation here, you first make an allegation that Professor Epstein abused -- Jane Doe Number 3 -- Dershowitz. I'm sorry? A. Right. Q. Jane Doe Number 3 who is no longer anonymous, Miss , correct? A. Right. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question please. Q. I just want to clarify that your pleading is ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607241 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alleging that Professor Dershowitz engaged in this sexual misconduct with Miss ; she's Jane Doe Number 3, correct? A. That's right. Jane Doe Number 3 is Miss A (ph) . Q. And I will ask you questions about that. But my question now is: You also allege that Professor Dershowitz was a participant in the abuse of other minors besides Miss Do you see that? A. Yes, I see that. Q. Who are the other minors? A. So I don't know the exact name of the other minors who were involved, but I do have an 89 page police report from the Palm Beach Police Department which lists, if I recall correctly, about 23 or 24 names of minors who went to the Jeffrey Epstein mansion in Palm Beach during a period of time that extends from -- let's see -- it would have been roughly, I don't know, from probably about a six-month period in 2005 -- there are a series of names. I don't think in this particular case because of confidentiality reasons, we can put into the record the names of those girls, but what I would propose doing is putting into the record the 89 page police report from the Palm Beach Police Department, which has page after page after page after page of young ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607242 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 girls going to the Epstein Palm Beach mansion and then being sexually abused in some cases, at least one case, forcibly raped. That is the basis for that particular allegation. Q. Mr. Cassell , does the police report you're referring to at any point say Professor Dershowitz abused any of these particular minors -- not were they abused at the mansion -- but did it say anywhere that Professor Dershowitz did that? A. The police report itself does not refer to Professor Dershowitz abusing these girls. However, when you look at the police report, what it shows is a pattern of egregious sexual abuse of approximately 23 to 24 young girls over an extended period of time at a mansion that was owned by Jeffrey Epstein who was one of the closest personal friends, from what I could gather, of Mr. Dershowitz. And so that was -- there's other information. I don't want to filibuster you on that. I would be happy to elaborate on that, but that is the first piece of evidence that I would begin referring to. If you want a more -- if you want -- just so the record is clear, if you want to know all the bases, all the grounds for which that allegation appears, then I would like to make a more extended presentation. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607243 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. We will get there. But my -- I want to make sure we are clear about this. Am I correct that the report itself never says, Alan Dershowitz abused anyone? A. That is a correct statement, I believe. Q. And we won't -- and the report does reflect -- the conclusion of -- it reflects abuse of minors by Jeffrey Epstein, correct? A. Oh yes, oh yea. What it shows is forcible rape of underage girls, and not a, shall we say, one off situation, but on something that is happening over, let's say, this is roughly a six-month period, 180 days -- I mean, I think you know, they document roughly speaking at least 180 sexual encounters give or take, and in fact, on some days, what they document in that police report is abuse that is taking place not once, not twice, but three times during the day in this mansion. And so I certainly agree with you, if it's possible, maybe my math is off here, 200 percent, that this report documents repeated sexual abuse including forcible rape by one of the closest friends of Mr. Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein. Q. So it's your testimony that Mr. Epstein was one of Professor Dershowitz's closest friends? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607244 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. We will come back to your basis for that. I want to go back to the police report. We've clarified it never says Professor Dershowitz abused anyone, correct? A. It doesn't say that directly, but the police report is part of a larger package of information that I had available to me since you asked on December 30th that suggested that Mr. Dershowitz was involved in the abuse of minors. I'm sorry. Let me correct that. In the sexual abuse of minors, in particularly, minor girls. Q. Would it be your position that anyone who was a friend, or a friend of Mr. Epstein who visited his house on more than a few occasions, that that's sufficient to conclude that -- to allege that they engaged in sexual abuse of minors? A. No. Q. Are we talking about guilt by association here? A. No. And that question requires a more extended answer, which I would be happy to provide for you, if you would like an extended answer. Q. Let me ask you this question: You referred to the police report, correct? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607245 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. And focusing now, not -- not on , we are focusing on the other minors, correct? I just have that in mind, right? A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Q. I want to make sure you're focusing on the allegation in this pleading that Professor Dershowitz abused other minors; do you have that in mind? A. I do. Q. Okay. First of all, I want to know, and for this question you don't have to give the names, do you have specific minors who you, at this point, contend were abused? A. I believe that the pool of people came from, among other young girls, roughly 23 to 24 minors identified in the Palm Beach Police Department report, or other similarly -situated girls in either New York, in the airplanes, or on -- in the Palm Beach mansion. So this -- the problem that I have here frankly, I'm sorry, but I think your question fairly calls for a longer answer, I could give you the names of those girls if Jeffrey Epstein would tell us the names of those girls that he trafficked in Florida, in New York, on his airplanes and elsewhere. But I think everyone in this room is aware Mr. Epstein has repeatedly refused to ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607246 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer questions about the names of the girls that he was sexually trafficking. And that's one of the things that has made this case so difficult, because if we could get the names of those girls, then we could -- we could try to help them. We could -- we could start to unravel the many crimes that Mr. Epstein has committed along with his associates. So, again, I could go on longer, and I don't want to filibuster your time, I think I've seen illustrations of that recently, but I -- what I want to do is make sure that -- that I could give additional information if people like Mr. Epstein would cooperate and give me the names of the girls that he was sexually trafficking. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. Can I have the same standing objection, Mr. Scarola? MR. SCAROLA: No, I don't think -- I don't think you will need a standing objection. MR. SIMPSON: Well, I'll just make the objection there and -- MR. SCAROLA: Thank you. MR. SIMPSON: I will go back to my question. BY MR. SIMPSON: ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607247 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. My question had nothing to do with whether you could identify girls that Jeffrey Epstein abused. My question was: As of December 30th, 2014 -- you don't have to give me the name right now -- is there any specific girl that you had evidence Professor Dershowitz abused? A. What I had was the police report moving girls and the girls were named in the police report, although the police report that I think has been made public has the names redacted, those girls were moving through the mansion at the time when, for example, household staff were saying that Mr. Dershowitz was receiving massages. And so, yes, I have 24 names in mind as possible sexual abuse victims that Dershowitz may or may not have abused. And I have not been able to pinpoint exactly what happened, because the people who would be in the best position to help me sort out what the names were, specifically Jeffrey Epstein among others, have refused to cooperate and give me those names. MR. SIMPSON: Move to strike the nonresponsive portion of the answer. THE WITNESS: Can I ask what part of that was nonresponsive in your view? MR. SCAROLA: That's all right. THE WITNESS: Okay. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607248 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCAROLA: Professor Cassell , you don't need to do that. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. If I understand you correctly, you said in that answer question -- strike that. If I understood you correctly, you said in that answer that there was a universe of 24 girls I believe you said or approximately, that Professor Dershowitz may or may not have abused; is that your position? A. That's correct. It's been impossible to narrow down exactly what happened because of lack of cooperation from, for example, Jeffrey Epstein. Q. If as of December 30th, 2014, based on your information, Professor Dershowitz may or may not have abused other minors, why did you allege that he did? A. Your question, as I understood it, was did I know the name of the particular girl that he may or may not have alleged -- I'm sorry -- did I know the name of the particular girl that he may have abused. And I couldn't get the exact name, but what I had was Mr. Dershowitz receiving massages in a time when, according to the police report, massage was a code word for sexual abuse of underage girls. Q. And so was it your understanding as of ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607249 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 30th, 2014, that every massage given to anybody at Mr. Epstein's residence was a code word for sexual abuse? A. It was my understanding that the term "massage" was frequently, if not almost invariably, used as a code word for sexual abuse, or at least sexual activity, if the girl happened to be over the age of 18. But in most cases at least, or in many cases depending on exactly what universe you're looking at, these were underage girls, under the age of consent in the State of Florida, they were under the age of 18. Sometimes as young as -- I think it went all the way down to, gosh, I'm trying to remember now, I think 13 or 14 was was the youngest age in the police report. Q. Is it your position that as of December 30th, 2014, you had a sufficient basis under the Federal Rules of Procedure and applicable ethical rules to allege that anyone who got a massage at Mr. Epstein's residence had abused minors? A. No. Q. What -- back up now. With respect again to other minors as of December 30th, 2014, had anyone -- had any young woman, other than -- we will put -- I'm going to ask about separately. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607250 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Okay. Q. Had any other young woman told you she had been abused by Professor Dershowitz? A. No other young women had told me that, no. Q. Had, as of that date, had anyone told you that Professor Dershowitz had abused other minors? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object for a moment here to the extent that you're going to be answering a question that requires you to divulge any attorney/client communication with , I have a standing objection that I'm putting on the record right now. does not waive her attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and they are not entitled to testify as to information that she intended to be confidential that she communicated to her lawyers. MR. SCAROLA: And I would instruct you not to answer the question on that basis. MR. SIMPSON: All right. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I disagree with the position on the privilege, but I will -- you're going to follow the instruction not to answer those questions? A. I am. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607251 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. I want to put then aside Had anyone else as of December 30th, 2014, told you that Professor Dershowitz had abused any minor, other than A. No one -- no other -- no other person, no other person had spoken to me and told me that directly, no. Q. And when you say no other person, I'm including not just any -- any victims of Mr. Epstein, but anyone else, no one had said to you, I have knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor, other than Epstein -- ; is that correct? MR. SCAROLA: Let me ask you for clarification if I could. Are you asking whether any person made that statement based upon the direct personal knowledge of that person? And the purpose for my clarification is to the extent information was conveyed to Professor Cassell by co-counsel, or anyone within the joint representation or common interest privilege, I'm not going to permit him to answer that question. If it's anybody outside that, he clearly can. So if you're looking for someone with direct ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 knowledge, he can answer that question, because I assume none of the lawyers within the common interest privilege had that direct knowledge. MR. SIMPSON: I'm asking -- for the purpose of the questions I'm putting aside and I'm putting aside her attorneys. MR. SCAROLA: Attorneys. MR. SIMPSON: Attorneys. MR. SCAROLA: Attorneys. MR. SIMPSON: Yes. MR. SCAROLA: Not just attorneys, but any attorney sharing a common interest privilege? MR. SIMPSON: No. No. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well I'm not going to let him -- BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me is ask this: As of December 30th, 2014, were there any attorneys who were sharing a common interest privilege with you as counsel in the CVRA case? Had you entered into an agreement with any other attorney? You have co-counsel , Mr. Edwards. MS. McCAWLEY: Well, to the extent that's going to reveal privileged information about accountant interest agreement, I am not going to ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607253 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 let him do that. MR. SIMPSON: That certainly is not privileged. That's fact. THE WITNESS: I think this is a -- I would be happy to answer the question, but this is a very complicated issue that -- that I think I should confer with -- I don't want to inadvertently waive a privilege that my client, , has or other persons may potentially have, so I think I would like take to short break and confer with my counsel on that question. MR. SIMPSON: We will take a short break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the video record, 2:13 p.m. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record, 2:25 p.m. MR. SCAROLA: So that the record is clear, we have had an opportunity to consult, and we are asserting both the attorney/client and common interest privilege, and I can tell you that there is no source of information outside of the attorney/client and common interest privilege that relates to the area of your current inquiry. MR. SIMPSON: Well, and I'll ask the question ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607254 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and you can tell me if you'll answer this question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Who, as your understanding as of December 30th of 2014, with which attorneys did you have a common interest privilege? A. Brad Edwards from, obviously, the law firm that I've been working with here. Also attorneys from the Boies Schiller law firm who were representing at that time. Q. Anyone else? A. The -- at that time, on December 30th, I don't know that it's directly responsive to your question, but also the Scarola law firm, Mr. Scarola in connection with litigation he was handling for Brad Edwards. Q. Any any other law firm lawyers that you had a common interest privilege with? A. No. Q. And you're going to refuse to answer questions about communications with Miss ; is that right? A. Sure. Those are -- well, some -- some communications are public, we will discuss those, I'm sure as the deposition moves along, but certainly with ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607255 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 respect to confidential communications that were part of providing legal services to Miss , yes, I will be asserting -- well, she's -- let me be a little more precise. She will be asserting attorney/client privilege and I'm not at liberty to waive that for her. Q. And we will make a proffer later as to questions we would ask about your communications with Miss as we believe those are not privileged, but -- MR. SCOTT: As well as the others. MR. SIMPSON: As well as the others that have -- MR. SCOTT: Attorney/client. MR. SIMPSON: -- attorney/client the privilege has been asserted. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Let me go back to the common interest group. Is there any written agreement memorializing a common interest agreement? MS. McCAWLEY: I'm going to object to the extent that it seeks details of an agreement. You're allowed to know the existence of the agreement; he testified to that. The details, you're not entitled to. ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607256 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to ask any details at all. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. I'm simply going to ask: Is it in writing, yes or no? As of December 30th, 2014, was there a written common interest agreement, yes or no? MR. SCAROLA: Those are two different questions and I think the record needs to be clear as to which one you're asking. MR. SIMPSON: All right. Let me ask this question. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. As of December 30th, 2014, was there any common interest agreement that was in writing? A. I'm not certain what date a written agreement was executed on these subjects. Q. At some point, was a written agreement executed? A. Yes. Q. And who were the parties to the written agreement? A. Well, there have been addenda to the agreement, if I recall correctly, but sitting here today, the parties to the agreement include , and her -- well, attorneys representing -- I ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607257 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mean -- I guess the attorneys representing on various matters which Boies Schiller law firm, the Bradley J. Edwards and his law firm, University of Utah's general counsel's office, the university -- I'm sorry -- the Utah Attorney General's office, Attorney General Reaz A (ph) and other persons there. And the Searcy -- well, Mr. Scarola's law firm, I'm trying to remember -- sorry, Jack, I can't remember the name of all your partners off the top of my head. MR. SCAROLA: That's quite all right. MR. SIMPSON: He's the man. THE WITNESS: It's the law firm that Mr. Scarola is a named partner in. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. And is it -- am I correct that you cannot say one way or the other whether that written agreement was executed before or after December 30th, 2014? A. That's right. Sitting here right now, no, I can't recall. Q. Okay. I want to go back to the motion for joinder which is Exhibit 2, and the provision -- not the provision -- the assertion that we were referring to. A. Right, right. Q. Concerning not , but other minors. Do you have that in mind? ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607258 r:1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Because of the privilege instruction, I'm going to ask it this way: As of December 30th, 2014, when you put your -- allowed your name to be put on this pleading as -- A. I didn't allow it. I was proud to sign this pleading. Q. Okay. As of December 30th, 2014, when you were proud to sign this pleading, was there any witness, whether a victim or anyone else, who could be -- person, whether a victim or anyone else, who could be called as a witness who would say, I have knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor, other than MM? A. I believe with further discovery we could have identified witnesses, yes. Q. So is the answer to my question, no, when I ask: As of December 30th, 2014, when you signed this, were you aware of a single witness who would testify, I have knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor, other than IIIIIIIr MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. I just want to be clear. Outside the context of what he learned through the common interest privilege. BY MR. SIMPSON: ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607259 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I'm asking whether he was aware of I'm not asking about -- well, let me back up. Are you aware of any witness who could be called who, as of December 30th, 2014, any person who could be called as a witness who would testify, I have knowledge that Alan Dershowitz abused a minor to support the allegation that Alan Dershowitz abused other minors? MR. SCAROLA: Outside of information gathered through attorney/client or common interest privileged communications; is that correct? MR. SIMPSON: No. It's not correct. MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Then, I'm not going to permit him to answer the question to the extent that it includes a request for information within the attorney/client and common interest privilege. MR. SIMPSON: Is it your position that the name of a person who could be called as a witness is somehow privileged? MR. SCAROLA: It is my position that any information communicated within the scope of the confidential attorney/client communication is privileged information. It is my position that any information including names communicated in the scope of ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA00607260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 confidential common interest privilege communications is privileged. Yes, that's my posi