EFTA00607219

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