IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREA CONSTAND, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-CV-1099

:

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., :

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this ______ day of ______________ 2005, upon consideration of 

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures, supporting Memorandum of Law 

and opposition thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

 J.
2

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiff

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

I.D. No.: 30253

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

I.D. No.: 21283

38 North Waterloo Road

Devon, PA 19333

(610) 688-8400

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREA CONSTAND, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-CV-1099

:

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., :

Defendant :

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff denies that defendant is entitled to an order compelling plaintiff to comply with 

the requirements of Federal R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1) and states further that plaintiff has complied 

with said rule. In support of her Response to Defendant’s Motion, plaintiff relies on the 

accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth 

herein.

Respectfully submitted,

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P.

 /s/ Bebe H. Kivitz

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

Attorneys for Plaintiff
TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiff

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

I.D. No.: 30253

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

I.D. No.: 21283

38 North Waterloo Road

Devon, PA 19333

(610) 688-8400

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREA CONSTAND, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-CV-1099

:

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., :

Defendant :

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff Andrea Constand (“Constand”) submits this Memorandum of Law in 

support of her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial 

Disclosures. Defendant’s Motion to Compel is simply without merit.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In her Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, Plaintiff 

identified nine “Jane Doe” witnesses who are anticipated to present F.R.E. 415 testimony. 

Defendant is under the misimpression that plaintiff does not intend to disclose the 

identity of the Jane Doe witnesses to him. This is simply incorrect. Plaintiff’s counsel 

indicated as early as counsels’ conference on March 23, 2005, that plaintiff intends to 

disclose to defendant the identify of all her witnesses, but not before the Court rules on a
2

Motion to Protect the Identity of Rule 415 Jane Doe Witnesses1 (“Motion to Protect”)

from the media. As explained in her Motion to Protect, there are serious privacy 

concerns in connection with disclosing the witnesses’ names and addresses to the media, 

and therefore, plaintiff does not believe it is proper to do so until the necessary safeguards 

are in place.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff Intends to Disclose Jane Doe Witness to the Defendant but only after 

their Identities are Protected from Public Disclosure.

Plaintiff is not denying the defendant the right to discovery. To the contrary, 

plaintiff merely wishes to protect the identity of her witnesses, complainants concerning 

prior sexual assaults and/or druggings, from public disclosure2. As explained in

plaintiff’s pending Motion to Protect the Identities of Jane Doe Witnesses, public 

disclosure of their identities raises important privacy concerns. Courts are willing to 

address these concerns when the witness’s privacy rights weighed against the public’s 

right to know their identity balances in favor of the witness. See, e.g., James v. 

Tilghman, 194 F.R.D. 398 (D. Conn. 1999) (protection of non-party inmate witnesses); 

Jason Doe v. American Nat. Red Cross, 151 F.R.D. 71, 72 (S.D. W.Va. 1993) (non-party 

blood donor); Landano v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 956 F.2d 422 (3rd Cir. 1992) (non-parties 

appearing in FOIA requested documents); Carhart v. Ashcroft, 300 F. Supp.2d 921 

(2004) (expert witness). 

 

1

 Now pending.

2

 In contrast, defendant has now taken the position that he will not be deposed -- despite earlier discussions 

between the parties concerning back-to-back depositions of defendant and plaintiff, and despite plaintiff’s 

initial request at counsels’ March 23, 2005 conference for convenient May dates in which to conduct 

defendant’s deposition. Plaintiff believes that there is simply no reason defendant’s deposition cannot take 

place within a reasonable period of time within the date the witnesses’ names are disclosed.
3

This precedent cogently demonstrates that a party has standing to protect the 

privacy rights of persons participating in litigation even though they may not be parties.

Case law relied upon by defendants for the opposite proposition is clearly 

distinguishable. In American Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 2005 WL 

643414, 30 (W.D.N.Y. 2005), the issue before the court was a document request, not the 

privacy concerns of witnesses; and, in Green v. Baca, 2005 WL 283361, 1 (C.D. Cal. 

2005), the issue was not discovery of witness identities but the right of a party to move to 

quash a third-party subpoena. In both cases the issue was access to discovery; here, 

Plaintiff is not denying defendant access to discovery; she only desires that public access 

to the witnesses’ identities be restricted. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel 

should be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Andrea Constand respectfully requests this 

Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures.

Respectfully submitted,

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P.

 /s/ Bebe H. Kivitz

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Bebe H. Kivitz, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Response and Memorandum of Law to

Defendant’s Motion Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures was filed electronically and is 

available for viewing and downloading from the ECF system. I further certify that a true and 

correct copy of said document was served via regular First Class mail, postage prepaid, on the 

following:

Patrick J. O’Connor, Esquire

George M. Gowen, III, Esquire

Cozen O’Connor

1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Andrew D. Schau, Esquire 

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P.

 /s/ Bebe H. Kivitz

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Date: April 19, 2005
5

EXHIBIT “A”
6

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiff

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

I.D. No.: 30253

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

I.D. No.: 21283

38 North Waterloo Road

Devon, PA 19333

(610) 688-8400

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANDREA CONSTAND, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-CV-1099

:

WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR., : 

Defendant :

SELF-EXECUTING DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL R. CIV. PROC. 26(a) & 28 U.S.C. §473(a)(4)

Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Troiani/Kivitz, 

L.L.P., provides the following disclosures:

A. WITNESSES:

1. Andrea Constand

Confidential address

Pickering, Ontario

2. Gianna Constand

Confidential address

Pickering, Ontario

3. Detective Richard Shaffer

Cheltenham Township Police Dept.

8230 Old York Road 

Elkins Park, PA 19027

4. Lt. Richard Peffall

Montgomery County Detective Bureau

One Montgomery Plaza, Suite 502

Norristown, PA 19401
7

5. Jennifer Sprague

Psychotherapist

53 Rabbit Street

Lakefield, Ontario

6. William H. Cosby, Jr.

8210 New Second Street

Cheltenham, Pennsylvania

7. Barry Levine

The National Enquirer, Inc.

1000 American Media Way

Boca Raton, Florida 33464

8. Joe Tobin

Celebrity Justice

New York, New York

Fed. R. Evid. 415 Witnesses, as to prior sexual assaults:

9. Tamara Lucier Green, Esquire

Confidential address

Ventura, California

Plaintiff believes this witness is in the process of 

retaining legal counsel 

10. Jane Doe 1

Confidential address

Taos, New Mexico

Represented by Joyce Dale, Esquire, Media, PA

Witness may be contacted through her legal counsel

11. Jane Doe 2

Confidential address

Spring Hill, Florida

Represented by Joyce Dale, Esquire, Media, PA

Witness may be contacted through her legal counsel

12. Jane Doe 3

Confidential address

Las Vegas, Nevada

Represented by Joyce Dale, Esquire, Media, PA

Witness may be contacted through her legal counsel
8

13. Jane Doe 4

Confidential address

Portola Valley, California

Represented by Joyce Dale, Esquire, Media, PA

Witness may be contacted through her legal counsel

14. Jane Doe 5

Confidential address

Denver, Colorado

Plaintiff believes this witness is in the process of 

retaining legal counsel 

15. Jane Doe 6

Confidential address

Toledo, Ohio

Represented by Joyce Dale, Esquire, Media, PA

Witness may be contacted through her legal counsel

16. Jane Doe 7

Confidential address

Cave Creek, Arizona

Represented by Joyce Dale, Esquire, Media, PA

Witness may be contacted through her legal counsel

16. Jane Doe 8

Confidential address

Monument, Colorado

16. Jane Doe 9

Confidential address

Corralitos, California

Plaintiff believes this witness is in the process of 

retaining legal counsel 

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list as a 

result of discovery and/or as additional information becomes 

known or available to her, as additional Jane Doe witnesses are 

located, or as additional Jane Doe witnesses who have contacted 

Plaintiff’s counsel indicate their willingness to be listed as 

trial witnesses.

B. DOCUMENTS

1. Documents constituting the criminal investigation in 

this matter.
9

2. Documents constituting transcripts of telephone 

conversations by Mr. Cosby and his authorized agents.

3. Relevant publications, including February 7, 2005, 

Celebrity Justice and March 4, 2005, Enquirer, and other 

relevant documents in possession of Celebrity Justice, The 

Enquirer, or other publications concerning Defendant’s 

statements, statements of his representatives or agents, and 

statements made by potential witnesses to representatives of 

such publications.

4. Documents within the possession of the New York County 

District Attorney’s Office and/or 19th Police Precinct, New York, 

NY, concerning Lachele Covington’s allegation of sexual assault 

made against Defendant in 2000.

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list as a 

result of discovery and/or as additional information becomes 

known or available to her.

C. DAMAGES

Plaintiff has sustained emotional and psychological damage, 

including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, 

and humiliation.

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P.

________________________

Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire

Dolores M. Troiani, Esquire

Attorneys for Plaintiff
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Bebe H. Kivitz, hereby certify that Plaintiff’s Selfexecuting Disclosures was served via facsimile and U.S. mail, 

postage prepaid, on the following:

Patrick J. O’Connor, Esquire

Cozen O’Connor

1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

TROIANI/KIVITZ, L.L.P.

Date: April 6, 2005 ________________________

Bebe H. Kivitz

Dolores M. Troiani

Attorney for Plaintiff