EFTA01139383

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 21 of 20 
III. 
EDWARDS AND CASSELL ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
ON THE COUNTERCLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THEIR AFFIRMATIVE 
DEFENSE OF LITIGATION PRIVILEGE. 
As the Court is aware, Edwards and Cassell have pending a motion to dismiss both 
counts of the First Amended Counterclaim on the basis of litigation privilege and other 
arguments. In this motion for summary, Edwards and Cassell specifically incorporated herein by 
reference the arguments advanced there. If for any reason the Court were to find that the motion 
to dismiss could not be granted based on the litigation privilege, Edwards and Cassell are clearly 
entitled to summary judgment on both counts of the First Amended Counterclaim for many of 
the same reasons articulated there — as well as based on new evidence outside the pleadings, such 
as the fact that Dershowitz has admitted that the allegations Edwards and Cassell filed were 
relevant to the federal case 
Under Florida's litigation privilege, "absolute immunity," a party and her attorneys are 
"exempted from liability to an action for defamatory words published in the course of judicial 
proceedings, regardless of how false or malicious the statements may be, as long as the 
statements bear some relation to or connection with the subject of inquiry." Zuccarelli v. 
Barfield, 165 So. 3d 830, 831 (4th DCA 2015); see also Levi,,, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, 
Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity 
afforded to statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding extends not only to the 
parties in a proceeding but to judges, witnesses, and counsel as well. Id. The litigation privilege 
applies in all causes of action, whether for common-law torts or statutory violations. See 
21 
EFTA01139403

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 22 of 20 
Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). 
Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in preparation for and 
connected to pending litigation are covered by the absolute immunity conferred by the litigation 
privilege. See DelMonico v. Traynor, 50 So. 3d 4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2010), review 
granted, 47 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 2010). And because it appears to be undisputed that Dershowitz is 
a "public figure," he must carry the extra burden of proving his defamation counterclaim by 
"clear and convincing evidence." Zorc v. Jordan, 765 So. 2d 768, 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). 
These authorities effectively narrow the issue on the pending counterclaim to the 
resolution of a single question: did the filing of Ms. 
affidavit in the 
Crime Victim's Rights Act cases currently pending the Federal District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida have "some relationship" to that proceeding. 
Dershowitz has himself 
answered that question in the affirmative on multiple occasions during his recent deposition: 
Q: 
You were asked on the occasion of that same Don Lemon CNN interview 
what possible motive the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 
have had to have identified you in the pleading that was filed in the Crime 
Victim's Rights Act Case. Do you remember that? 
A: 
That's right, yes. 
Q: 
And your response was quote — "They want to be able to challenge the 
plea agreement. I got the very good deal for Jeffrey Epstein." 
Did you make a response? 
A: 
Yes. 
Q: 
So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015, that the reason why the 
statements were filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because 
22 
EFTA01139404

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 23 of 20 
the Crime Victim's Act case had, as an objective, setting aside the plea 
agreement that you had negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 
A. 
There were multiple motives. One of the motives was crassly financial. 
They were trying to line their pockets with money. But as I also said, and 
I said this over and over again, they profiled me. They sat down with their 
client, knowing that she has a history of lying, knowing that she is easily 
suggestible, and they basically pressured her, according to my sources, 
into including me when she didn't want to include me, because by 
including me, they could make a claim, false as it was, could make a false 
claim that a person who negotiated the NPA was also criminally involved 
with her. 
* 
* 
* 
Q. 
You stated, quote: "If they," referring to Bradley Edwards and Paul 
Cassell, "could find a lawyer who helped draft the agreement" — 
A. 
Right. 
Q. 
-- "who also was a criminal having sex, wow, that could help them blow 
up the agreement." 
Did you make that statement on — 
A. 
Yes. I just repeated it now, yes, under oath, yes. 
Depo. of Alan M. Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2015), at 217-220 (Exhibit #13). 
For all the reasons previously advanced, Edwards and Cassell are entitled to have both 
counts of the First Amended Counterclaim against them dismissed — as they argue in their 
pending motion to dismiss. But in addition, a motion for summary judgment is the proper way to 
introduce Dershowitz's concession and other evidence to the Court. And given the obviously 
undisputed concession that Dershowitz made in his deposition, summary judgment is also 
appropriate on Count I of the counterclaim because of litigation privilege. 
23 
EFTA01139405

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 24 of 20 
And then, with summary judgment appropriate on Count I of the pending counterclaim, it 
also follows that summary judgment is also appropriate as to Count II as well. As explained at 
greater length in the motion to dismiss, nothing in the record established any disputed fact 
showing anything other than that Edwards and Cassell did not make out-of-court statements 
containing actionable defamatory allegations against Dershowitz. Moreover, in ruling on this 
summary judgment motion, the "allegedly defamatory words must be read in the context of the 
entire publication, and if the documents could not possibly have a defamatory effect, the 
complaint may be dismissed . . . ." Zorc v. Jordan, 765 So. 2d 768, 771 (Fla.4th DCA 2000). 
Dershowitz has simply collected snippets of emails to try and cobble together a viable 
defamation claim. But when these snippets are each read in context — as this Court must do in 
ruling on this summary judgment motion — it is clear that Edwards and Cassell were not 
engaging in a media dialog with Dershowitz, but instead simply representing their client and 
trying to avoid an out-of-court statements about Dershowitz. 
For example, Dershowitz 
remarkably tries to allege that Edwards and Cassell defamed with the statement that "out of 
respect for the court's desire to keep this case from being litigated in the press, we are not going 
to respond at this time to specific claims of indignation by anyone." 
First Amended 
Counterclaim at ¶ 32. Moreover, Dershowitz tries to claim a defamation occurred when Cassell 
sent an email to a journalist stating "I represent . . . the young woman who was sexually abused 
by" Prince Andrew and Dershowitz. This statement, read in context, was nothing more than an 
identification of Cassell's client in a way that permits a media representation to understand who 
24 
EFTA01139406

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 25 of 20 
is being discussed. See Cassell Depo. at 310-12 (Oct. 17, 2015) (Exhibit #3). And in addition, 
Edwards and Cassell were simply making a "fair report" about properly-filed legal pleadings 
that, as Dershowitz's concession in his deposition demonstrates, were relevant to the case at 
hand. For all these reasons, summary judgment in favor of Edwards and Cassell is appropriate 
on the First Amended Counterclaim. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, defendant, the Court should grant defendant Bradley J. 
Edwards, Esq., and Paul Cassell, Esq. partial summary judgment in their favor on the issues of 
the false and defamatory nature of the statements alleged in their complaint, as well as the 
presumed damages that flow from them. The Court should also grant summary judgment in their 
favor on the First Amended Counterclaim filed against them by Dershowitz. 
25 
EFTA01139407

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 26 of 20 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that true 
ect copy of the fo 
oing was sent via E-Serve to all 
Counsel on the attached list, this 
ay of November 015. 
a 
ar No.: 169440 
ey E-Mail(s): isx@searevlaw.com and mep@searcylaw.com 
ary E-Mail: Jsarolateam@searcylaw.com 
earcy Denney Scarola Bamhart & Shipley, P.A. 
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 
Phone:( 56I) 686-6300/Fax:(561) 383-945 I 
SEAN D. REYES 
Utah Attorney General 
By: JONI J. JONES 
JOEL A. FERRE 
Assistant Utah Attorneys General 
Bradley J. Edwards 
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, 
EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 
Telephone (954) 524-2820/Facsimile (954) 524-2822 
E-mail: brad@oathtojustice.com 
And 
Paul G. Cassell 
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending 
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the 
University of Utah 
383 S. University St. 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112 
Telephone:801-585-5202/Facsimile:801-585-6833
E-Mail:cassellp@law.utalLedtl
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell 
26 
EFTA01139408

Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz 
Case No.: CACE 15-000072 
Edwards and Cassells Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability 
Page 27 of 20 
COUNSEL LIST 
Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire 
Thomas.scott®csklegal.com; 
Steven.safra@csklegal.com 
Cole Scott & Kissane P.A. 
9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 
Miami, FL 33156 
Phone: (305)-350-5329 
Fax: (305)-373-2294 
Attorneys for Defendant 
27 
Richard A. Simpson (pro hac vice) 
rsimpson@wilevrein.com 
Mary E. Borja (pro hac vice) 
mboda@wilevrein.corn 
Ashley E. Eiler (pro hac vice) 
aeiler@wilevrein.com 
WILEY REIN LLP 
1776 K St. NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
Phone: (202) 719-7000 
Fax: (202) 719-7049 
EFTA01139409

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR PLAINTIFFS' 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
1. 
Video Presentation. 
2. 
Affidavit of Virginia Roberts Giuffre. 
3. 
Deposition of Paul Cassell (Oct. 16 & 17, 2015). 
4. 
Palm Beach Police Department 87-page report. 
5. 
Flight logs for Epstein's private jet. 
6. 
Jane Doe 102 Complaint 
7. 
Excerpt of Jeffrey Epstein Taking The Fifth when asked about Dershowitz. 
8. 
Deposition Excerpts of Juan Alessi. 
9. 
Deposition Excerpts of Alfredo Rodriguez. 
10. 
Documents reflecting efforts to depose Dershowitz regarding his knowledge of Epstein's 
sexual abuse in 2009, 2011, 2013, and January 2015. 
11. 
Photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Ms. Giuffre. 
12. 
Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 15, 2015). 
13. 
Deposition of Alan Dershowitz (Oct. 16, 2015). 
14. 
Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards. 
15. 
Affidavit of Paul G. Cassell. 
16. 
Deposition excerpts of Ms. Sarah Kellen, Ms. Adrianna Mucinska, and Ms. Nadia 
Marcinkova. 
17. 
Alfredo Rodriguez Copy of Jeffrey Epstein Telephone Directory. 
28 
EFTA01139410