Epstein Secrets

he summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two add

least restrictive means necessary to accomplish its purpose. The Florida Supreme Court held in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), that a sealing order can be entered only where “no reasonable alternative is available to accomplish the desired result, and, if none exists,

- PAGE BREAK --- EXHIBIT D HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015618 --- PAGE BREAK --- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 171% JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, Vv. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. [PROPOSED] CONFIDENTI

onally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34)

response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the conseque

the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court

* Associate, Snow, Christensen & Martineau (Salt Lake City, Utah). *** Partner, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.). The authors thank Douglas Beloof, Patricia Cassell, Meg Garvin, Jay Howell, James Marsh, and Stephen Twist for their assistance with this Article.

sonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do

* Associate, Snow, Christensen & Martineau (Salt Lake City, Utah). *** Partner, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.). The authors thank Douglas Beloof, Patricia Cassell, Meg Garvin, Jay Howell, James Marsh, and Stephen Twist for their assistance with this Article.