20
05 CIV. 8360(NRB), 2008 WL 2073934, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2008) (in suit for damages
against tax advisor for negligence in providing tax advice, reliance and causation could only be
assessed through invading the attorney-client privilege and examining the nature of counsel’s
advice to determine different advice was given by attorneys). The at issue waiver is complete
“even if a party does not attempt to make use of a privileged communication” Bowne of New
York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 488 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (discussing Bilzerian,
926 F.2d 1285); Chin, 2008 WL 2073934, at *6 (waiver occur even where client does not
reference attorney communications if review of communications is necessary to establish an
element of a claim). Here, Edwards and Cassell put the issue of their “good faith” reliance on
Plaintiff’s communications to them affirmatively at issue, as well as their investigation of what
she told them in those communications. Having done so with Plaintiff’s knowledge and consent,
and without her protest, the waiver is complete.
The application of the privilege here, after it has been selectively waived, denies Ms.
Maxwell information vital to her defense. By way of very limited example, in the case at bar,
Plaintiff claims that she was defamed when Ms. Maxwell stated that the allegations Plaintiff
made in the Joinder Motion, included allegations regarding Dershowitz, Ms. Maxwell and Prince
Andrew, were false. In the Joinder Motion Edwards and Cassell boldly state “Epstein required
Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a
minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C at 4. Edwards and Cassell, however, had doubts about
Plaintiff’s allegations based on their own investigation, including whether Dershowitz and
Plaintiff were ever on Epstein’s plane together. Cassell identified flight logs Edwards and he
reviewed as supporting the allegations made by Plaintiff. Menninger Decl., Ex. L at 69-70. He

21
admits, however, that there is not a single log entry that put Dershowitz and Plaintiff on the same
plane.4
Having put at issue their investigation and “good faith belief” in Plaintiff’s stories, they
must provide all information about anything that both supports and undermines Plaintiff’s story
and their own belief in the credibility of that story.
Plaintiff will undoubtedly attempt to prop-up her claims that she was telling the truth
through use of the investigative material, work product, mental impressions and opinions on her
credibility offered by her attorneys/joint defense partners, Edwards and Cassell. Ms. Maxwell
cannot be denied access to information showing her attorney’s work and investigation shows
Plaintiff’s stories were fabricated, including the details uncovered demonstrating Plaintiff’s lack
of credibility.
Each of the factors considered by the Second Circuit to find a broad waiver weighs in
favor of finding such a waiver here. The factors are “(1) whether substantive information has
been revealed; (2) prejudice to the opposing party caused by partial disclosure; (3) whether
partial disclosure would be misleading to a court; (4) fairness; and (5) consistency.” McGrath v.
Nassau Cty. Health Care Corp., 204 F.R.D. 240, 244.
Cassell and Edwards have revealed in extensive detail their work-product demonstrating
why they believed Plaintiff’s allegations and incorporated them in the Joinder Motion. It would
be prejudicial for Plaintiff to be able to support her claim in this case that she is not a liar using
her attorney’s testimony and work product, while preventing discovery of work-product and
communications that would prove otherwise or cast doubts on Plaintiff’s credibility. It would be

4 My question, Mr. Cassell, is: You reviewed the flight logs, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You reviewed them in some detail, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is there any entry on those flight lines -- logs that you read as putting Professor Dershowitz and Miss Roberts on
the same plane?
A. No.
Menninger Decl., Ex. L 206:3-11.

22
misleading to the court or any jury to hear testimony from Plaintiff’s counsel about all the factual
basis, work product and thought process on which they relied in making the allegations in the
Joinder Motion, but refusing to permit Ms. Maxwell discovering or presenting contradicting
information that Plaintiff’s attorneys had, including information that led them to conclude that it
was a “mistake” to have filed sexual misconduct allegations against Dershowitz. Fairness and
consistency require that Plaintiff and her attorneys be required to disclose all work product and
attorney-client communications relating their investigations of Plaintiff’s statements and story as
alleged in the CVRA Case, their investigations of the allegations, their assessment of the
credibility of the allegations, and contradictory evidence uncovered.
III. There is No Privilege as to Communications with Scarola
Plaintiff listed on her privilege log Jack Scarola, Edwards and Cassell’s attorney, as an
individual who received or sent communications or documents relating to the CVRA Case. The
log does not state what these documents are, instead including them as part of the “categorical”
logging. The “Types of Privileges” identified are Attorney Client, Work Product, and Joint
Defense/Common Interest. It is entirely unclear how any of these protections can be invoked
regarding communications including Scarola or over documents provided by or to him.
a. There is no Attorney-Client Relationship
Plaintiff specifically states in her interrogatory responses that Scarola is not and has never
been her attorney. Thus, there can be no attorney-client-communications between Plaintiff and
Scarola. If there were, Plaintiff has clearly and voluntarily waived any privilege.