honors andrew cheli and along with my colleague david level it's we represent professor alan dershowitz the intervenor in this case i'm not trying to foreclose anything you might say quite the opposite i would protect your time but i the party what i wish to call them are in agreement basically on how this through how this should proceed i believe we are your honor and to be absolutely have no problem with essentially the opening of the whole file absolutely that's correct in a document that would prove that that's not correct we actually move to unseal the entire summary judgment record along all agreement so we only have maxwell as the dissidents in this situation is not a dissident in this case either there is no one who has asserted a privacy interest in the three documents that we initially asked for so what distinguishes the dershowitz appeal from the churn of it and the and the miami herald appeal really is that for two and a half years he's been seeking he began by seeking three specific documents that you for a manuscript  that's right they do show his innocence and we're happy to have the whole record open because those are part of the record and whatever chips may fall with respect to the rest of the documents that's fine but for two and a half years he has been trying to open up those three particular documents and he has been relentlessly pilloried in the public discourse on this issue falsely improperly his reputation has been to smirk and so really our issue for the court today to put it in very basic terms is that we want those doc those three documents to be everything we do but to be very specific about the three documents that we initially mood for two and a half years ago and with respect to those three documents it's your view as you stated here that week we as an appellate court can make the decision with respect to those three documents and with respect us three documents who if anyone is objecting to their release so far as i can tell your honor no  one well as to the if i could just your for if you want the three he wants everything right so so let me say a word about the three documents and then i'll say a word about this to various position as i understand it as to the three documents we have the manuscript all we want from the manuscript are the the items that relate to professor dershowitz it's about a page and it demonstrates that there's no allegation that he committed a sexual sexual misconduct of any sort ok there are also the e mails with sharon church or who was assisting in the trying to sell this manuscript in which she for the first time suggests you should put alan dershowitz into your manuscript and we and she says we know he didn't commit any sexual misconduct but put him in anyways because he's a famous lawyer and will help sell the book we think that should be released immediately and then the last yes clearly and no one has a privacy interest in that that's oh that's just a commercial discussion between mr frey and and a friend of hers who was a journalist who was assisting her in the third thing is the reply brief the reply brief on the motion to quash isn't is argument made to the court that does present a legal issue of first impression for this court which is whether it is possible to be a judicial document and be a document that's related to discovery and discovery motion so we can talk about that but the only reason to be very clear the only reason the reply brief is sealed is because it contains those emails that i referenced so once the emails come out there's no reason for the reply brief not to come out just yet for all but just to respond judgeable or to your point about the object objection seems to be that because two and a half years ago we asked for three documents that this court should exercise some fairness doctrine or some editorial judgment like you can't just get part of the record but of course all the cases talk about individual specific on the record findings document by document he asked for three documents those are the three documents that related to him and he's entitled to them and now what we're hearing is that there needs to be at the lower court some kind of an editorial discussion of is it fair to just relate to let three go as opposed to the rest with respect to those three documents was there ever any sort of hearing in the district court evidence  none whatsoever there was and fact that i would you describe the state of the record with respect to those three documents that at this point there and there was just to be very clear mr casella talks about his client's desire for few things that were fine with the whole thing but we wanted to happen right away we've been waiting two and a half years my client is eighty one years old his reputation has been completely to smirched unfairly in the public discourse and there's no reason to wait there is no privacy interest that have been asserted with respect to these three documents can you describe the state of the litigation in this matter are there other any other lawsuits pending elsewhere now sir this is it whether there is an absolute privilege in in pleadings or in filings with the courts right over time one encounters situations where individuals opportunities to deal with the defamation question but i guess that's all behind this because the law because this action has been settled that's right your honor and to be very clear mr dershowitz was originally accused by mr jew frey in two thousand and eleven it was in two thousand and sixteen as a witness in this case that he learned of the existence of these documents and he immediately made an application to intervene and to unseal the records now that that was to use judge pullers  this court can and should immediately call for the release of those three documents send the rest of the file back for a document by document review under move gosh and we believe that it also be open and we support that entirely you know object to the summary judgment and you know being released dershowitz is position is that the courts should be open the courts must be open and that is what the first amendment calls for and that's the presumption that exists and as to these three documents we want them right away and as to the rest we want them as soon as they can be released and you colloquy earlier with miss to bore you have no objection to that kind of procedure if it's necessary i think that would be appropriate and you'd be prepared to participate in that of course we would i mean i'm not sure that mr dershowitz has much to say because he's he's only in this in the record in minimal ways to my understanding but of course we would participate we participate subject to the court's confidentiality as mr bor suggested and i think we can what does that really for to the courts confidentiality in other words while the individual rulings are being made the miami herald and the turn of its media folks do not know what's in the record and so they need to be told that as they are observing it and we would we would also participate in that way i do want to say one other thing the idea i just have to say this for the honor of my client the idea that mr dershowitz has anything to do at all with m other than having appeared on you know he came and did an interview with him at some point it's very unfair that part of it he's not part of the slut shaming cabal absolutely not and nor nor did he in any way suggest  the whole record yes the one point that i would want to emphasize is was obvious who we dispute his characterization we think when all the records come out it will show that epstein and maxwell were trafficking my client ms to frey to the powerful friends his involvement in the sex trafficking if those came out now immediately along with the three he wants would be perfectly happy but i said i think it's going to have to go back to the district court that's unfair to have him cherry pick three documents out of hundreds many of which are going to show the  full breadth of this absolutely absolutely there are other witnesses and those are the documents that we want to come out to show his involvement in the sex trafficking of his close friend jeffrey epstein and it should be pointed out i think just so there's not any confusion the crime victims rights act is continuing in florida right now and recently summary judgment was granted in favor of several of my other client jane doe wanted jane doe two and that's the judge is now considering what remedy should there the pleading that she filed we gave nine reasons why she did should be allowed to make those allegations judge mero rejected the first reason he said it was not a relevant to the joinder motion but he did say that my client ms ju frey could participate in the case in other ways even though she was not allowed to join that so what do you participate well i think that judge marrows is wrestling with that right now i think at the point being that now that we know the united states government violated the crime victims rights act in reaching the deal which jeffrey epstein the victims are now entitled to participate in fashioning an appropriate remedy for the violation of their rights and so on or else i ask this question of other counsel earlier what other judicial proceedings are there of which we should be aware of which may be affected by what we do here the c v r a case and this case i think are the two salient ones the no further questions thank i'll be very brief your honour's let me be absolutely clear alan dershowitz is happy and prepared and eager for all documents that have been sealed in this case what ideas he believes that more information is better than less information he believes that he will be able to demonstrate his innocence through the documents that he initially asked for and everything else all together so if there's any doubt in anybody's mind about that i want to just dispel that immediately the idea that this jew frey is going to stand here through her lawyer and say we should get our documents too is other worldly it is missed you frey who designated these documents and who participated in the ceiling of these documents she could go she could have gone at any time in the last two and a half years in front of judge sweet and said well let's let's let these documents out and i don't believe them as maxwell would have objected at that point but my point very simply is there's nothing unfair about a party coming in and saying i want to unseal some documents and now we don't have to wrestle with that except as to timing those three documents should be released immediately the rest should be subject to as to whether the judge sweet is the appropriate person to do this in the circumstances that sweet is one of the most distinguished judges in the district he's somebody i personally venerate i think it should be a different judge honestly for the reason the senator or a special master or a magistrate judge i just believe that there is so much water under the bridge over the dam with respect to just wait it would be better if it were somebody else as the magistrate judge or the special master in these circumstances would would would have to be designated by the district judge to whom the case is remand i think that's right your honor and again with the greatest amount of respect for judge suite i actually as i think about it i think it ought to be a district judge because if you if you give it to a special master or to a magistrate judge you then are adding a layer of appeal to the district court and we're going to be here you know another two years let the three documents go let the rest of the process be done by district judge that would be my suggestion all right that they're not on in this argument but perhaps mr bore or mr gear who are listening attentively have anything to add as a result of colloquy we'd be delighted to hear them don't feel the need to accept my invitation i know you don't have to invite me twice wrong well there there's been discussion about about phrase behavior with regard to what ought to be sealed and what ought not to be sealed and even in this last argument we talked there was a discussion about how mr frey could have at any time asked judge sweet to not seal or to unseal records what was like to share with the court is that there is a reason why mr frey has changed her position it has to do with money  mr frey has been pursuing the media for over a decade with regard to this very story and as mr dershowitz is counsel have suggested the story that she has has expanded it have become more exotic there have been it's almost like i see a name in the news and i'm going to make an allegation about that person i believe that's how mr dershowitz into the pier i believe that's how mrs maxwell ended up here now when the when this so called defamation case against ms maxwell was settled there is a reason for that it is because there is a this is this is a kind of a grand jury that ms that ms frey has convened through the district courts of this country she views the discovery process to gather information she never dreamed she would have she used this discovery process to go after twenty nine depositions that she never could have gotten on her own and so using using this story that she have she now has she has thousands thousands of pages tens of thousands of pages of discovery matter that now she throws up her hands and says let us on let us unseal all of this was reveal all of this notwithstanding the fact that she was able to get this information only through the discovery process and only through the protective order the protective order that the court talked your honor and good brands talked about in the street case that people are relying on this protective order in order to provide the just ask you since everyone here in your client would be pleased to have the ceiling or at least my right to interpret the sentiments here everyone other than you are willing to open the whole record up right i haven't counted the court i think that the party or not counted and counted us we're talking about right and i don't know you are the only party that still wants to retain these materials on the ceiling is that right that that very well may be true and that is the beauty of our judicial system or is it not true i'd insofar as what i've what i've heard today it sounds like and the court has kind of pulled these individuals as they've come up but the beauty of our system the judicial system is not democratic it is based on fairness it's based on the constitution it's bailiffs on the right to privacy including of people who are not present in this courtroom your honor  phrase demand for its goes back to the district court for the kind of process we've been discussing what interest who is it that should be informed as you're suggesting that they participate who apart from the parties represented here today would participate in any such proceeding in a district court oh your honor i do i dearly wish to avoid sliding down that slippery slope i think there are a lot of people in whose whose privacy interests are at stake here what i suggest to this court is that judge suite not on they're unaware i'm just i am absolutely certain that these non parties are unaware that this proceeding right now is is going on and the court should be aware that some of these non parties showed up for their depositions with lawyers those lawyers said on the record we assume and we are expecting that what our client is about to testify to under under the authority of judge suite subpoena his subpoena power and then the compulsory process that our client's information you are asking highly sensitive intrusive in for questions we believe these materials are our clients information will be protected under the protective order and that isn't that is what i think that so far there has been not sufficient attention paid to today it's you final question yes respect to the extent of the documents we're talking about given what we now know about the parties before us and what they are interested in  what percentage of the constellation of documents here are of interest to you and that is do you have an interest in all of these documents we have a one hundred percent interest in one hundred percent of the documents in this case where we are half of the party parties that were president we entered into this entire process under this protective order that we apparently  are everyone is now saying all the other parties and nonpartizan are now saying we didn't have a right to rely on that's not what happened in two thousand and sixteen it certainly wasn't what happened throughout the entire deposition period the entire time that discovery was going on  give or take and then in two thousand and seven the united states government entered into a secret non prosecution agreement concealed that that's the term used by judge marrow from the victims misled that's the word used by judge marrow the victims about what was going on and when we learned about it the victims in two thousand and eight what was going on litigation was initiated to try to get geoffrey epstein prosecuted and it was just about two weeks ago thirteen days ago the judge mera finally ruled conclude simply that the u s government violated the rights of the victims by keeping this agreement secret that's the that's the underlying factual cause just one last point we heard a reference from mr g about people relied on the protective order remember the protective order was going to be lifted if the case went to trial so any understanding of confidentiality were only understanding that the confidentiality would be temporary is the bar any final comments from you are you resting on what you said earlier you only want to say one thing this can all be worked out at the hearing where we finally go document by document the way the law requires thank you