HOUSE OVERSIGHT 019298 EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP Page 2 Florida Bar that reference information that was developed during discovery in this case. In keeping with plaintiff's enduring practice of insisting on selective confidentiality to bolster her own accusations while concealing evidence that undermines her claims, the materials provided to the Post include cherry-picked and misleading characterizations of evidence that is sealed and/or designated confidential under the protective order governing this action—to say nothing of the fact that it is simply false. In several instances, the materials plaintiff's counsel provided to the Post directly reproduce exhibits that were marked confidential in this case by plaintiff; and which plaintifffiled under seal before the district court. These disclosures violate both the spirit and the letter of the district court's orders, and appear calculated to hamstring Professor Dershowitz—who respects and will abide by the court's orders—in responding to the accusations against him. Most notably, the materials provided to the Washington Post repeat the outrageous claim that "came forward" and "corroborated" Ms. Giuffre's accusations against Dershowitz when she "testified under oath that she had been trafficked by Mr. Epstein and had had sex with Mr. Dershowitz." As plaintiff's counsel are well aware, Ms. testimony is marked confidential and remains under seal; indeed, plaintiff hersqf filed the relevant deposition transcript under seal before the district court. See ECF No. 701-1. Yet the materials provided to the Washington Post repeat specific details from Ms. sealed deposition, including specific sex acts she claims occurred with specific individuals. Plaintiff's counsel's selective characterization of this sealed evidence to a national newspaper is an outrageous violation of the district court's orders. See ECF No. 62 III 4 ("CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purp