Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz
Case No.: CACE 15-000072
Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 3 of 20
case. Accordingly, it is impossible for Edwards and Cassell to respond with precision to his motion. The exceptions that might arguably be in play in this case permit records to be maintained
as confidential in order to:
(i) Prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice;
(ii) Protect trade secrets;
(iii) Protect a compelling governmental interest;
(iv) Obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
(v) Avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
(vi) Avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed;
(vii) Comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law....
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9) (codifying the holding in Barron y. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988)). The only exception that seems to even arguably apply here is exception vi, which itself specifically provides that confidentiality is appropriate only where disclosure is “not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed” (emphasis added). Of course, this lawsuit is a defamation action — involving adefamation claim by Edwards and Cassell and adefamationcounterclaim by Dershowitz. Disclosure, discussion, and debate about the defamatory statements at issue lies at the heart of the case. Accordingly, disclosure of these materials is “inherent” in the case itself.
The principle that defamatory material in a defamation case cannot be sealed is recognized
in Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310 (2d DCA 1997). Carnegie involved a claim and
counterclaim between two parties (Carnegie and Tedder), one of whom alleged that disclosure of
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010759