Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 12 of 19 IV. Prof. Dershowitz Immediately Responded to Jane Doe #3’s Allegations Against Him by Asking to Defend his Reputation Jane Doe #3 also argues that Prof. Dershowitz should not be allowed to intervene because “he has declined to defend his reputation in other actions.” (DE 279, at 12.) This is demonstrably false. It is without question that the Motion for Joinder filed by Jane Doe #3 on December 30, 2014 (DE 279) was the first time anyone has ever alleged that Prof. Dershowitz had any sexual contact with a minor. It necessarily follows that this is the first opportunity Prof. Dershowitz has had to defend his reputation related to “his involvement in Epstein’s offenses.” In fact, just six days after these venomous allegations were made, Prof. Dershowitz filed his Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 282.) More specifically, Jane Doe #3 argues that when the civil lawsuit was brought by “one of the underage females” against Epstein in 2009 (Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-80893-KAM (S.D. Fla.), “Dershowitz understood that counsel for many of Epstein’s victims believed that mounting evidence pointed toward his role extending beyond merely being an attorney for Epstein.” (DE 279 at 13.) This, too, is demonstrably false. Despite this rank and self-serving speculation about what Prof. Dershowitz “understood,” there is not one piece of evidence which points to any allegations that he engaged in any sexual contact with any minor, or even observed any criminal activity, prior to the December 30, 2014 Motion for Joinder. Instead, the deposition testimony which Jane Doe #3 points to simply states that Prof. Dershowitz visited Epstein’s home (Deposition Testimony of Alfredo Rodriguez at 199, 278, 279, DE 291-18, herein, “Rodriguez Depo. Tr.”) Rodriguez specifically testified that he has no idea whether Prof. Dershowitz had any contact at all with any female. 12 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010746