Epstein Drop One

January 3, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska, Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until completed. This filing also excludes documents pertaining to Does 105 (see December 28, 2023, Email Correspondence with Chambers), 107, and 110 (see ECF No. 1319), while the Court’s review of those documents is ongoing. Respectfully, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 2 From: Sent: To: gmaxl@ellmax.com Saturday, January 10, 2015 9:00 AM Philip Barden; Ross Gow I am out of my depth to understanding defamation and other legal hazards and don't want to end up in a law suit aimed at me from anyone if I can help it. Apparently even saying Virginia is a lier has hazard! I have never been in a suit criminal or civil and want it to stay that way. The US lawyers for the Jane Does are filling additional discovery motions and if I speak I open my self to being part of discovery apparently. I am trying to stay out of litigation and not have to employ lawyers for years as I get lost in US legal nightmare. I stand no legal risk currently on these old charges and civil suits against Jeffrey We need to consult with US lawyers on any statement I make and the complaints too Perhaps we make a statement of the legal risk of saying anything for potential defamation or something that prevents a full and frank detailed rebuttal+ the press not being the place for that? Regardless, Philip plse call jeffrey lawyer and see what you can under.stand from him and pehaps craft something in conjunction with him? Either way I think you need to speak to him to understand my risk so you can help me understand it - too may cooks in the kitchen and l can't make good decisions. Plse reach out to him today + I have already suffered such a terrible and painful loss over the last few days that I can't even see what life after press he'll even looks like - statements that don't address all just lead to more questions .. what is my relationship to clinton ? Andrew on and on. Let's rest till monday. I need head space THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INST AGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH PRIVILEGED GM_001044 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-1 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2 Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, V. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. United States District Court Southern District of New York Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS I --------------- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. During her recent deposition, Defendant refused to answer numerous questions about allegedly .. adult'' sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be ordered to answer questions about it. As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre's assertions that she and other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of being "massage therapists." See Complaint, (DE 1). at 127 (Giuffre '·described Maxwell's role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme''). In response to these assertions, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre·s assertions are "entirely false'' and '·entirely untrue." Complaint, DE 1, at 131. 1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. Counsel for the parties conferred at the deposition regarding answering questions. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed as having something to do with ''consensual adult sex." Defem,e counsel supported that position that "frankly, [that's] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer." See Declaration of Sigrid S. Mccawley ("Mccawley Deel.'') at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was that at a number of points throughout her deposition, Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions about what the alleged ''massage therapists" were doing at Jeffrey Epstein's house and the sexual nature of those massages. For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey Epstein a massage: Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein a massage? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, foundation. And I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question. I don't have any problem with you asking questions about what the subject matter of this lawsuit is, which would be, as you've termed it, sexual trafficking of Ms. Roberts. To the extent you are asking for information relating to any consensual adult interaction between my client and Mr. Epstein, I'm go;ng lo instruct her not to answer because it's not part of this litigation and it is her private confidential information, not subject to this deposition. MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct her not to answer. That is your right. But I will bring her back for another deposition because it is part of the subject matter of this litigation so she should be answering these questions. This is civil litigation, deposition and she should be responsible for answering these questions. MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and you anderstand the bounds that I put on it. MS. McCA WLEY: No, I don't. I will continue to ask my questions and you can continue to make your objections. Q. Did you ever participate from the time period of 1992 to 2009, did you ever participate in a massage with Jeffrey Epstein and another female? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do not am,wer that question. Again, to the extent you are asking for some sort of illegal activity as you've construed in 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 connection with this case I don't have any problem with you asking that question. To the extent these questions involve consensual acts between adults, frankly, they're none of your business and I will instruct the 1vztness not to answer. MS. McCA WLEY: This case involves sexual trafficking, sexual abuse, questions about her having interactions with other females is relevant to this case. She needs to answer these questions. MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her not to answer. MS. McCA WLEY: Then we will be back here again. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 ( emphasis added). Defendant's participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms. Giuffre has explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was Defendant who provided instruction on how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual event. Obviously, proof that Defendant had previously massaged Epstein - include massages with sexual component - would provide important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre's testimony at trial. And proof that Defendant was involved in massages will further help prove that statements to the press that Virginia's allegations were ''obvious lies'' was itself an obvious lie. As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions about her knowledge that Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein and provided massages. fn the police report, Johanna admitted that Maxwell recruited her to work for Epstein. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 3, Giuffre000076-77 (police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell). Yet during Defendant's deposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg. Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was hired to performance? A. She was tasked to answer telephones. Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey's feet? .. . A. I believe that J have read that, but I don't have any memory of it. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey massages? A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that becoming somebody in the healthcare profession. either exercise instructor or nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to travel and have ajob that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would have said that she should explore that as an option. Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? A. I'm just saying, r cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career advice and I have done that. Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you? A. 1 did. Q. How many times? A. I don't recall how many times. Q. Was there sex involved? A.No .... Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give me an opportunity to get in between the questions. Anything that involves consensual sex on your part, I'm instructing you not to answer. Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna? A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult -- Q. I'm asking you, did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna? A. I've just been instructed not to answer. Q. On \\.hat basis? A. You have to ask my lawyer. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis added). 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions are designed to show a modus operani (''M.O") for Epstein and Maxwell - specifically, how they recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massage into sexual activities. One last illustration comes from Defendant's refusal to answer about her know ledge of Epstein's sexual interests during massages: Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual encounters? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation. A. I'm not referring to any advice on my counsel. l'm not talking about any adult sexual things when I was with him. Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having a massage? A. l'm not talking about anything with consensual adult situation. See Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82. While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions. it appears likely that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly, Ms.. Giuffre must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here again, information about Epstein's sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to Ms. Giuffre's testimony that she had sexual interactions of an identic:ll nature with Epstein. These refusals are not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions occurred repeatedly throughout the deposition. See, e.g, Mccawley Deel. at Composite Exhibit 6. 52-55; 64-65; 82: 92-93: 137-38: 307-09. The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions. In addition to the specific points made above, the "big picture" here reveals how vital such discovery is. At the core of Ms. Giuffre's allegations is the allegation that Defendant lured her into a sexual situation with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with knowledge that the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification to Epstein. As a result, Epstein's use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this case. And Defendant's role in those massages - and knowledge of the purposes of those massages - is a critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms. Giuffre's assertions as ·'entirely untrue." Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant knew full well the sexual purpose for which she was recruiting females - including underage females like Ms Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore Defendant's knowledge of the sexual activities that took place under the guise of "massages.'' Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein's house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g., Mccawley Deel. at Exhibit 7. Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 ("'Q: Did [the pay for massage therapists] vary on what sexual acts they performed? ... A: No, it varied depending on how much time. some massage therapists charge more and some charge less.''). Defendant's refusal to answer questions about alleged "adult" consensual sex also blocks Ms. Giuffre from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions about her and Epstein's sexual activities with alleged "adults," Defendant is essentially given the ability to refuse to answer any sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply has to deem the question as involving "consensual adult sex" and no need be given. The result is to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 that she is unaware of any sexual activity im,olving underage females, because (she claims) the only sexual activity she was aware involved adults. The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein's various homes. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g, Kel(v v. Al Tech , No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) ("Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's objection to answering the questions. and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition" (internal citations omitted)). Of course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its objections, particularly in light of "the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules .... " John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought ''need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.'' Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(6)(1)). Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a case in which sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find that discovery pertains to alleged "adult" sexual activities - and questions about such subjects are entirely proper. See, e.g, Condit v Dunne, 225 r.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case, '·Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of plaintiff."); Weber v. lvfultimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) ("While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants' interrogatories concerning her sexual partners .... ''). Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be "limited to [issues regarding] privilege." Morales v. Zonda, inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and sought to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was improper and the Court should order a resumption of the Defendant's deposition so that she can answer questions about her knowledge of sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein. CONCLUSION Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions regarding her knowledge of alleged "adult" sexual activity. Dated: May 5, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, By: v-J Sigrid cCawley (P. ac Vice) Meredith Schultz ( ro Hae Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 8 LP Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hae Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hae Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 3 83 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801 ) 585-52022 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, -against￾GHISLAINE MAXWELL , Case No.: 15-cv- 07433 - RWS Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X **CONFIDENTIAL** Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena , was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York , commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 12 00 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Pagel Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 6 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 6 7 8 BY: 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdatle, Florida , 33301 SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & 9 LEHRMAN, P . L . 1 0 11 12 BY: Attorneys for Plaintiff 425 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333 01 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE 13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 383 South University Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 15 16 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN 17 Attorneys for Defendant 150 East 10th Avenu 18 Denver, Colorado 802 03 BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE 19 LAURA A. MENNINGER , ESQUIRE 2 0 21 Also Present: 22 James Christe , videographer 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 6 1 2 A. G Maxwell - Confidential She was tasked to answer 3 telephones. 4 Q. Did y ou ever ask her to rub 5 Jeffrey 1 s feet? 6 7 8 MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. I believe that I have read that , 9 but I don 1 t have any memory of it. 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she 11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey 12 massages? 13 A. I was always happy to give career 14 advice to people and I think that becoming 15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either 16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or 17 professional massage therapist is an 18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are 19 around 7 , 8, $9 and as a professional 20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere 21 between as we have established 10 0 to $2 00 22 and to be able to travel and have a job that 23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So 24 in the context of advising people for 25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 60 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 6 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 would have said that she should explore that 3 as an option. 4 Q. Did you tell her she would get 5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? 6 7 A. I ' m just saying, I cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career advice 8 and I have done that. Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage 1 0 you? 11 A. I did Q. How many times? A. I don't recall how many times. 14 Q. Was there sex involved? 15 A. 16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to 17 massage Glenn Dubin? 18 A. I don ' t believe -- I have no 19 recollection of it. 2 0 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 21 with Johanna? 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. You need to give me an opportunity to get in between the questions. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 61 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 G Maxwell - Confidential Anything that involves consensual sex on your part , I 'm instructing you not to answer. Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 6 with Johanna? 7 8 A. Q. Again, she is an adult -- I'm asking you, did you ever have 9 sexual contact with Johanna? 1 0 A. 11 answer. 12 13 14 Q. A. Q. I ' ve just been instructed not to On what basis? You have to ask my lawyer . Did you ever have sexual contact 15 with Johanna that was not consensual on 16 Johanna ' s part? 17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer nonconsensual. A. I've never had nonconsensual sex 2 0 with anybody. 21 22 23 Q. A. Not Annie Farmer? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. I just testified I never had 24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any 25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 62 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-3 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE , Plaintiff, - against - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Case No . : 15 - cv- 07433-RWS Defendants . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X **CONFIDENTIAL** Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date , before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 12 00 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Pagel Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 17 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 6 7 8 BY: 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdatle , Florida, 333 01 SIGRID MCCAWLEY, ESQUIRE MEREDITH SCHULTZ , ESQUIRE EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & 9 LEHRMAN, P.L. 10 11 12 BY: Attorneys for Plaintiff 425 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333 01 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE 13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 383 South University Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 15 16 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN 17 Attorneys for Defendant 150 East 10th Avenu 18 Denver, Colorado 80203 BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE 19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE 20 21 Also Present: 22 James Christe , videographer 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 for sexual acts. 3 4 acts? 5 6 7 Q. I 'm asking if they performed sexual MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. Q. Did any of the massage therapists 8 who were at the home perform sexual acts for 9 Jeffrey Epstein? 1 0 A. I don ' t know what you mean by 11 sexual acts. 12 Q. Did any of the massage therapists 13 who were working at the home perform sexual 14 acts, including touching the breasts, 15 touching the vaginal area , being touched 16 while Jeffrey is masturbating, having 17 intercourse, any of those things? 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. foundation. Form and To the extent any of this is asking for to your knowledge any consensual sex act that may or may not have involved you, I'm instructing you not to answer the question. Q. I'm not asking about consensual sex MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 52 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 acts. I ' m asking whether any of the massage 3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. 4 Epstein, as I have just described? 5 A. I have never seen anybody have 6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. 7 8 Q. I 'm not asking about sexual intercourse. I 'm asking about any sexual 9 act , touching of the breast -- did you ever 10 see -- can you read back the question? 11 (Record read. ) 12 A. I'm not addressing any questions 13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to 14 talk about what the subject matter, which is 15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts , that 16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in 17 perpetrating her lies, I ' m happy to address 18 those. I never saw any inappropriate 19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever . 2 0 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I 'm 21 asking about whether any of the masseuses 22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for 23 Jeffrey Epstein? 24 25 A . Q. I have just answered the question. No, you haven't. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 53 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 A. Q. A. Q. G Maxwell - Confidential I have. No, you haven't. Yes , I have. You are refusing to answer the 6 question. 7 8 A. Q. Let ' s move on. I 'm in charge of the deposition. 9 say when we move on and when we don't. 10 You are here to respond to my I 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the 12 court will bring you back for another 13 deposition to answer these questions. 14 Do you understand that? 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don ' t need to threaten the witness. MS. McCAWLEY: I ' m not threatening her. I' m making sure the record is clear. MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you apply to have someone come back and the court may or may not have her come back again. Again , she is not answering questions that relate to adult consent MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 54 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 G Maxwell - Confidential sex acts. Period. And that ' s the instruction and we can take it up with the court. Q. Ms. Maxwell , are you aware of any 6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey 7 Epstein that were nonconsensual? 8 9 1 0 A. Q. A. No . How do you know that? All the time that I have been in 11 the house I have never seen , heard, nor 12 witnessed , nor have reported to me that any 13 activities took place, that people were in 14 distress, either reported to me by the staff 15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on 16 that. 17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by 18 the name of Annie Farmer? 19 2 0 A. Q. I am. Has Annie Farmer given a statement 21 to police about you performing sexual acts on 22 her? 23 24 A. Q. I have not heard that . Has Annie Farmer given a statement 25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 55 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 G Maxwell - Confidential Q. Did you have sex with her? MR. PAGLIUCA: This is the same instruction about consensual or nonconsensual. Q. Was Emmy under the age of 18 when 7 you hired her? 8 A. No. I didn ' t hire her, as I said, 9 Jeffrey did. 10 Q. Did Emmy ever have sex with 11 Jeffrey? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 14 15 did. 16 form and foundation. A. How would I know what somebody else Q. You weren 1 t involved in the sex 17 between Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? 18 19 A. Q. We already -- Were you involved with sex between 2 0 Jeffrey, Emmy and yourself? 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Everyone is talking over each other. You heard the question. Again , you you know what the instruction is. If there is any MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 64 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 17 l 2 3 4 5 G Maxwell - Confidential consensual issue involved, I instruct you not to answer . A. Moving on. Q. So you are refusing to answer that 6 question? 7 8 A. Q. I ' ve been instructed by my lawyer. Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey, 9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was 1 0 underage? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 A. Absolutely not. MR. PAGLIUCA: We ' ve been going for about an hour. I would like to take a five-minute break , please. MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm almost done. MR . PAGLIUCA: You are not going to allow a break. MS. MCCAWLEY: As soon as I get through my line of questioning , which is perfectly appropriate. Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and 22 Jeffrey to Europe? 23 24 25 A. Q. A. I'm sure she did . What is she doing today? I have no idea. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 65 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 17 1 2 Q. G Maxwell - Confidential Did you train Virginia on how to 3 recruit other girls to perform sexual 4 massages? 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. No. And it ' s absurd and her entire 8 story is one giant tissue of lies and 9 furthermore, she herself has if she says 10 that , you have to ask her about what she did . 11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his 12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters? 13 14 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation. A. I ' m not referring to any advice on 16 my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult 17 sexual things when I was with him. 18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, 19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his 2 0 nipples while he was having a massage? 21 A. I 'm not talking about anything with 22 consensual adult situation. 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. What about with underage I am not aware of anything. You are not aware of Jeffrey MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 8 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 17 1 2 Q. G Maxwell - Confidential In your responsibilities in working 3 for Jeffrey, would you book massages for him 4 on any given day so that he would have a 5 massage scheduled? Would you take a call for 6 example and book a massage for him? 7 8 9 1 0 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation . Q. A. You can answer. Typically, that was not my 11 responsibility. He would either book the 12 massage himself or one of his other 13 assistants would do that. 14 15 that? 16 17 18 Q. From time to time you had to do MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation . A. Like I said, typically it was 19 somebody else 1 s responsibility. 2 0 Q. If you were unable to book a girl 21 for a massage on a given day , would that mean 22 that you were responsible for giving him a 23 sexual massage? 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Obj ection to the form and foundation and I instruct you MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 92 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 17 1 2 3 4 G Maxwell - Confidential not to answer any questions about any of your consensual adult sexual activity. Q. So you are not going to answer that 5 question? 6 7 A. Q. You just heard my counsel. Have you ever said to anybody that 8 recruiting other girls to perform sexual 9 massages for Jeffrey Epstein takes the 1 0 pressure off you? 11 12 13 14 out . 15 MR . PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. A. Repeat the question and break it Q. Have you ever said to anybody that 16 you recruit girls -- 17 A. Stop right there. I never 18 recruited girls, let's stop there. Now 19 breakdown the question. 2 0 21 Q. A. Have you ever said to anybody -- By girls, we are talking about 22 underage people -- you said girls, are you 23 talking about underage -- we are not talking 24 about consensual acts - - this is a defamation 25 suit. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 93 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 the flights? 3 A. I can't recollect having a meal 4 with them, but just so we are clear, the 5 allegations that Clinton had a meal on 6 Jeffrey ' s island is 100 percent false. 7 Q. But he may have had a meal on 8 Jeffrey ' s plane? 9 A. I 'm sure he had a meal on Jeffrey ' s 1 0 plane. 11 Q. You do know how many times he flew 12 on Jeffrey's plane? 13 14 15 16 17 A. Q. A. Q. A. I don't. Do you know I do. How do you He used to 18 Bill Clinton. who Doug Band is? know him? work or still works for 19 Q. Did you ever have a relationship 20 with him? 21 A. We are talking about adult 22 consensual relationships, it ' s off the 23 record . 24 Q. I 'm not asking what you did with 25 him , I 'm asking if you ever had a MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 137 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 relationship with him? 3 4 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: If you understand the term relationship , certainly you can answer that. A. Q. Define relationship . Somebody that you would have spent 8 time together, either seeing them in a 9 romantic relationship or -- 10 A. You need to be , what do you mean by 11 romantic . I was friends with Doug but you 12 are suggesting something more so I want to be 13 clear what you are actually asking me. 14 15 Q. You defined it. You said you were friends wi th him . If that ' s what you were 16 that ' s all I need to know. 17 While you were on the trip with 18 President Clinton, do you recall where you 19 stayed at these locations, in other words, 2 0 would you leave the jet and stay overnight at 21 a hotel , do you have a recollection of this 22 trip? 23 A. I recollect the trip but if y ou' re 24 asking me where we stayed , you can see it ' s a 25 very fast paced trip. It was very tiring and MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Page 138 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 G Maxwell - Confidential form and foundation. A. sorry - - recognize Q. form A. Q. I I don't know why the name is -- I 'm can't -- I have no idea. I the name but that's it. Was Johanna Sjoberg a masseuse? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the and foundation . What are you asking me , I 'm sorr y? When Johanna Sjoberg worked for 11 Jeffrey Epstein, did she perform massages? 12 A. I've testified that when Johanna 13 came originally, she came to answer 14 telephones. I believe at some point she 15 became a masseuse. I don ' t recollect when 16 and I personally had massages from Johanna . 17 Q. What did Johanna do for Jeffrey 18 Epstein, did she perform massages, anything 19 else? 20 21 22 MR . PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. When she came she answered phones 23 and at some point, I believe , I don't have 24 any firm recollection, but I believe she went 25 to school and became a masseuse and I had MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 307 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 massages from her. 3 Q. Did you ever have any sexual 4 interaction with her? 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation and I 1 m going to instruct you if we 1 re talking about any consensual adult contact, you are not allowed to answer the question. Q. Did you have any sexual contact 11 with her in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein? 12 13 Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction . Did you have any sexual contact 14 with her in the presence of anybody other 15 than Jeffrey Epstein? 16 17 Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: Same instruction. How many massages did you receive 18 from Johanna? 19 A. 2 0 amount. Q. I really don 1 t recall but a fair Did the massages involve sex? MR. PAGLIUCA: I 1m going to 21 22 23 24 instruct you not to answer. Q. Have you ever engaged in sex with 25 any female? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 308 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 G Maxwell - Confidential MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to instruct you not to answer. MS. MCCAWLEY: I want the record to reflect that Ms. Maxwell's attorney is directing her not to answer this series of questions. MR. PAGLIUCA: It definitely does. Q. Were you responsible for 10 introducing Anuska to Jeffrey Epstein? 11 12 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. I already testified that I don ' t 14 really recall Anuska. 15 Q. Were you responsible for 16 introducing Johanna to Jeffrey Epstein? 17 18 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Again, I don't like the 2 0 characterization of introduction. Johanna 21 came to answer telephones. 22 Q. When did you -- were you the person 23 who brought or introduced or met Johanna for 24 purposes of bringing her to Jeffrey Epstein ' s 25 home? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Page 3 09 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-4 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 17 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 56 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Case No.: -against- 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x **CONFIDENTIAL** Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. - - - MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 1200 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 56 Page 2 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 5 Fort Lauderdatle, Florida, 33301 BY: SIGRID McCAWLEY, ESQUIRE 6 MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQUIRE EMMA ROSEN, PARALEGAL 7 8 FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & 9 LEHRMAN, P.L. Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 425 N. Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 11 BY: BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE 12 13 PAUL G. CASSELL, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 383 South University Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 15 16 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN 17 Attorneys for Defendant 150 East 10th Avenu 18 Denver, Colorado 80203 BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE 19 LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQUIRE 20 21 Also Present: 22 James Christe, videographer 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 56 Questions About People Under the Age of 18 at Epstein’s Home Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 56 Page 13 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. You can answer. 3 A. I have not any idea exactly of the 4 youngest adult employee that I hired for 5 Jeffrey. 6 Q. When you say adult employee, did 7 you ever hire someone that was under the age 8 of 18? 9 A. Never. 10 Q. Did you ever bring someone who was 11 under -- invite someone under the age of 18 12 to Jeffrey's home, any of his homes? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 14 foundation. 15 A. Can you repeat the question? 16 Q. Did you ever invite anybody who was 17 under the age of 18 to Jeffrey's homes? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objections. 19 A. I have a number of friends that 20 have children and friends of mine that have 21 kids and in the invitation of my friends and 22 their kids, I'm sure I may have invited some 23 of my friend's kids to come. 24 Q. Anybody that is not a friend of 25 yours. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 56 Questions About Meeting the Plaintiff and Massages with Plaintiff Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 56 Page 16 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Ms. Roberts held herself out -- 3 Q. I'm not asking how she held herself 4 out. I'm asking how she arrived at the home. 5 Did you meet her and invite her to come to 6 the home or how did she arrive there? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 8 and foundation. 9 A. Ms. Roberts held her to be a 10 masseuse and her mother drove her to the 11 house. 12 Q. When did you first meet Virginia 13 Roberts? 14 A. I don't have a recollection of the 15 first meeting. 16 Q. Do you recall meeting her at 17 Mar-a-Lago? 18 A. Like I said, I don't have a 19 recollection of meeting Ms. Roberts. 20 Q. So you recall Ms. Roberts being 21 brought to the home by her mother, is that 22 your testimony? 23 A. That is my testimony. 24 Q. And that is the first time you met 25 her? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 56 Page 17 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Like I said, I don't recall meeting 3 her the first time. I do remember her mother 4 bringing her to the house. 5 Q. Are you a member at Mar-a-Lago? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you visited Mar-a-Lago? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did you visit Mar-a-Lago in the 10 year 2000? 11 A. I'm pretty sure I did. 12 Q. When Ms. Roberts arrived at the 13 home with her mother, what happened? 14 A. I spoke to her mother outside of 15 the house and she -- what I don't recall is 16 exactly what happened because I was talking 17 to her mother the entire she was in the 18 house. 19 Q. Did you introduce Ms. Roberts to 20 Jeffrey Epstein? 21 A. I don't recall how she actually met 22 Mr. Epstein. As I said, I spoke to her 23 mother the entire time outside the house. 24 Q. Did you walk Ms. Roberts up to the 25 upstairs location at the Palm Beach house to MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 56 Page 19 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 absolutely everything that took place in that 3 first meeting. She has lied repeatedly, 4 often and is just an awful fantasist. So 5 very difficult for anything to take place 6 that she repeated because I was with her 7 mother the entire time. 8 Q. So did you have -- did you give a 9 massage with Virginia Roberts and Mr. Epstein 10 during the first time Virginia Roberts was at 11 the West Palm Beach house? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 13 and foundation. 14 Q. Yes or no? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you ever given a massage with 17 Virginia Roberts in the room and Jeffrey 18 Epstein? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. No. 22 Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epstein 23 a massage? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form, 25 foundation. And I'm going to instruct MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 56 Questions About Massages with Minors Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 56 Page 22 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 questions. 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing her 4 not to answer. 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be back 6 here again. 7 Q. Have you ever given a massage to 8 Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the 9 age of 18? 10 A. Can you repeat the question? 11 Q. Yes. Have you ever given a massage 12 to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under 13 the age of 18? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Have you ever observed Mr. Epstein 16 having a massage given by an individual, a 17 female, who was under the age of 18? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you ever observed females 20 under the age of 18 in the presence of 21 Jeffrey Epstein at his home? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 23 and foundation. 24 A. Again, I have friends that have 25 children -- MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 56 Questions About Hiring Massage Therapists Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 56 Page 31 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 -- just another one of Virginia's many 3 fictitious lies and stories to make this a 4 salacious event to get interest and press. 5 It's absolute rubbish. 6 Q. Were you in charge of hiring 7 individuals to provide massages for Jeffrey 8 Epstein? 9 A. My job included hiring many people. 10 There were six homes. As I sit here, I hired 11 assistants, I hired architects, I hired 12 decorators, I hired cooks, I hired cleaners, 13 I hired gardeners, I hired pool people, I 14 hired pilots, I hired all sorts of people. 15 In the course and a very small part 16 of my job was from from time to time to find 17 adult professional massage therapists for 18 Jeffrey. 19 Q. When you say adult professional 20 massage therapists, where did you find these 21 massage therapists? 22 A. From time to time I would visit 23 professional spas, I would receive a massage 24 and if the massage was good I would ask that 25 man or woman if they did home visits. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 56 Questions About Jane Doe 2 and Nadia Marcinkova Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 56 Page 37 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 here today I do not. 3 Q. Ms. Maxwell, when did you first 4 meet 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 6 and foundation. 7 A. I have no idea when I met her. 8 Q. Do you know how old she was when 9 you met her? 10 A. I have no idea how old she was when 11 I met her. 12 Q. Is it possible she was 13 years old 13 when you first met her? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 15 and foundation. 16 A. 18 may have been in the house when Jeffrey was 19 in the house. I have no idea how old she 20 was. 21 Q. I understand she was with 22 23 I'm asking if was 13 24 years old when you first met her? 25 A. I have no idea. ■ - - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 56 Page 38 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Was she under 18 when you first met 3 her? 4 A. I have no idea how old she was when 5 I first met her. 6 Q. Did she look like a child when you 7 first met her? 8 A. I don't remember what she looked 9 like at the time she was in the house. 10 Q. How many years have you known her? 11 A. I can only recall the last time I 12 saw her. 13 Q. When was the first time you met 14 her? 15 A. Again, I just told you, I don't 16 recall the first time I met her. 17 Q. Did travel with you 18 on Jeffrey's planes? 19 A. I wouldn't remember if was on 20 the plane or not. 21 Q. Did you ever have sex with 22 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you ever observe Jeffrey having 25 sex with - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 56 Page 39 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. No. 3 Q. Were you aware that Jeffrey was 4 having sexual contact with when 5 she was 13 years old? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 7 and foundation. 8 A. I would be very shocked and 9 surprised if that were true. 10 Q. Were you in the house when was in the house in a private area 12 with Jeffrey Epstein? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 14 and foundation. 15 A. Can you repeat the question. 16 Q. Were you ever in the Palm Beach 17 house when Jeffrey Epstein was in the house 18 with ? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. I've already testified that I have 22 met her and that she was there 23 I don't understand what your 24 question is asking. 25 Q. So you have never seen ■- - - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 56 Page 40 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 4 and foundation. 5 Q. Is that your testimony? 6 A. I already said I don't recall all 7 the times I've seen her and I have no memory 8 of that. 9 Q. Have you ever seen in 10 the house with Jeffrey Epstein 11 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 13 and foundation. 14 A. I just told you I don't recall 15 seeing 16 Q. Were you ever involved in an orgy 17 with 18 A. No, absolutely not. 19 Q. Can you tell me, do you know an 20 individual by the name of Nadia Marcinkova? 21 A. I do. 22 Q. How did you meet Nadia Marcinkova? 23 A. At some point she was a friend of 24 Jeffrey's and I recall meeting her at some 25 point. - - MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 56 Page 46 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did Jeffrey arrange for a visa for 3 Nadia Marcinkova? 4 A. I don't know what Jeffrey did. I 5 cannot testify what Jeffrey did. 6 Q. Was Nadia involved in sex with 7 Jeffrey and other girls? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 9 and foundation. 10 Q. Girls under the age of 18? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 12 A. I have no idea. 13 Q. Was Nadia involved with sex with 14 Jeffrey and girls over the age of 18? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 16 A. I have no idea. 17 Q. Did Nadia recruit other girls for 18 sex with Jeffrey? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. I have no idea. 22 Q. Do you still talk to Nadia? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Is she a pilot? 25 A. I have no idea. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 56 Questions About Mr. Epstein and Sex Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 56 Page 53 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 acts. I'm asking whether any of the massage 3 therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. 4 Epstein, as I have just described? 5 A. I have never seen anybody have 6 sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever. 7 Q. I'm not asking about sexual 8 intercourse. I'm asking about any sexual 9 act, touching of the breast -- did you ever 10 see -- can you read back the question? 11 (Record read.) 12 A. I'm not addressing any questions 13 about consensual adult sex. If you want to 14 talk about what the subject matter, which is 15 defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts, that 16 you and Virginia Roberts are participating in 17 perpetrating her lies, I'm happy to address 18 those. I never saw any inappropriate 19 underage activities with Jeffrey ever. 20 Q. I'm not asking about underage. I'm 21 asking about whether any of the masseuses 22 that were at the home perform sexual acts for 23 Jeffrey Epstein? 24 A. I have just answered the question. 25 Q. No, you haven't. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 56 Questions About Sarah Kellen, Glen Dubin, Plaintiff, Johanna Sjoberg, Annie Farmer and Sex Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 56 Page 54 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. I have. 3 Q. No, you haven't. 4 A. Yes, I have. 5 Q. You are refusing to answer the 6 question. 7 A. Let's move on. 8 Q. I'm in charge of the deposition. I 9 say when we move on and when we don't. 10 You are here to respond to my 11 questions. If you are refusing to answer the 12 court will bring you back for another 13 deposition to answer these questions. 14 Do you understand that? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: You don't need to 16 threaten the witness. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm not threatening 18 her. I'm making sure the record is 19 clear. 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you 21 apply to have someone come back and the 22 court may or may not have her come back 23 again. 24 Again, she is not answering 25 questions that relate to adult consent MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 56 Page 55 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 sex acts. Period. And that's the 3 instruction and we can take it up with 4 the court. 5 Q. Ms. Maxwell, are you aware of any 6 sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey 7 Epstein that were nonconsensual? 8 A. No. 9 Q. How do you know that? 10 A. All the time that I have been in 11 the house I have never seen, heard, nor 12 witnessed, nor have reported to me that any 13 activities took place, that people were in 14 distress, either reported to me by the staff 15 or anyone else. I base my answer based on 16 that. 17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by 18 the name of Annie Farmer? 19 A. I am. 20 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement 21 to police about you performing sexual acts on 22 her? 23 A. I have not heard that. 24 Q. Has Annie Farmer given a statement 25 to police about Jeffrey Epstein performing MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 56 Page 57 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 asked and answered already. 3 Q. You can answer the question. 4 A. I have no idea what Sarah Kellen 5 did. 6 Q. You never observed Sarah Kellen 7 with girls under the age of 18 at Jeffrey's 8 home? 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 10 and foundation. 11 A. The answer is no, I have no idea. 12 Q. Do you know Glenn Dubin? 13 A. I do. 14 Q. What is your relationship with 15 Glenn Dubin? 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form. 17 A. What do you mean what is my 18 relationship. 19 Q. Are you friendly with him, how do 20 you know him? 21 A. He is the husband of Eva Dubin. 22 Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you ever send Virginia to 25 Glenn's condo at the Breakers to give him a MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 56 Page 58 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 massage? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you ever instruct Virginia 7 Roberts to have sex with Glenn? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 A. I have never instructed Virginia to 11 have sex with anybody ever. 12 Q. How old was Eva Anderson when she 13 met Jeffrey? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 A. I have no idea. 17 Q. What's she under the age of 18? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. I just testified I have idea how 21 old she was. 22 Q. You testified she was your friend. 23 You don't know how old she was when she met 24 Jeffrey? 25 A. That happened sometime in the '70s, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 56 Page 59 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 how would I know, or '80s. I have no idea. 3 Can you testify to what your friends did 30 4 years ago? 5 Q. You don't ask the questions here, 6 Ms. Maxwell. 7 What about Johanna Sjoberg, when 8 did you first meet Johanna? 9 A. I don't recall the exact date. 10 Q. Did you hire Johanna? 11 A. I don't hire people, she came to 12 work at the house to answer phones. 13 Q. Where did you meet her? 14 A. I just testified, I don't recall 15 exactly when I met her. 16 Q. Was one of your job 17 responsibilities to interview people that 18 would be then hired by Jeffrey? 19 A. That was one of my 20 responsibilities. 21 Q. Do you recall interviewing Johanna? 22 A. I don't recall the exact interview, 23 no. 24 Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was 25 hired to performance? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 56 Page 60 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. She was tasked to answer 3 telephones. 4 Q. Did you ever ask her to rub 5 Jeffrey's feet? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. I believe that I have read that, 9 but I don't have any memory of it. 10 Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she 11 would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey 12 massages? 13 A. I was always happy to give career 14 advice to people and I think that becoming 15 somebody in the healthcare profession, either 16 exercise instructor or nutritionist or 17 professional massage therapist is an 18 excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are 19 around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional 20 healthcare provider you can earn somewhere 21 between as we have established 100 to $200 22 and to be able to travel and have a job that 23 pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So 24 in the context of advising people for 25 opportunities for work, it is possible that I MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 56 Page 61 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 would have said that she should explore that 3 as an option. 4 Q. Did you tell her she would get 5 extra money if she massaged Jeffrey? 6 A. I'm just saying, I cannot recall 7 the exact conversation. I give career advice 8 and I have done that. 9 Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage 10 you? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. How many times? 13 A. I don't recall how many times. 14 Q. Was there sex involved? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you ever instruct Johanna to 17 massage Glenn Dubin? 18 A. I don't believe -- I have no 19 recollection of it. 20 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 21 with Johanna? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 23 and foundation. You need to give me an 24 opportunity to get in between the 25 questions. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 56 Page 62 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Anything that involves consensual 3 sex on your part, I'm instructing you 4 not to answer. 5 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 6 with Johanna? 7 A. Again, she is an adult -- 8 Q. I'm asking you, did you ever have 9 sexual contact with Johanna? 10 A. I've just been instructed not to 11 answer. 12 Q. On what basis? 13 A. You have to ask my lawyer. 14 Q. Did you ever have sexual contact 15 with Johanna that was not consensual on 16 Johanna's part? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: You can answer 18 nonconsensual. 19 A. I've never had nonconsensual sex 20 with anybody. 21 Q. Not Annie Farmer? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. 23 A. I just testified I never had 24 nonconsensual sex with anybody ever, at any 25 time, at anyplace, at any time, with anybody. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 56 Page 63 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. So if Johanna were to testify that 3 she did not consent to a sexual act that you 4 participated in -- 5 A. I just told you I have never ever 6 under any circumstances with anybody, at any 7 time, in anyplace, in any form had 8 nonconsensual relations with anybody. 9 Q. Did you introduce Johanna to Prince 10 Andrew? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. I've, again, read that Johanna 14 claimed that she met or that she said she met 15 Prince Andrew. I don't know if I was the one 16 who made the introduction or not. 17 Q. Do you know a female by the name of 18 Emmy Taylor? 19 A. I do. 20 Q. How do you know her? 21 A. Emmy was my assistant. 22 Q. So she worked for you? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you hire her? 25 A. Again, Jeffrey hired people. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 56 Questions About Emmy, Virginia, and Ms. Maxwell Regarding Sex Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 56 Page 65 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 consensual issue involved, I instruct 3 you not to answer. 4 A. Moving on. 5 Q. So you are refusing to answer that 6 question? 7 A. I've been instructed by my lawyer. 8 Q. Did you ever have sex with Jeffrey, 9 Emmy, Virginia and yourself when Virginia was 10 underage? 11 A. Absolutely not. 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: We've been going for 13 about an hour. I would like to take a 14 five-minute break, please. 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm almost done. 16 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not going to 17 allow a break. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: As soon as I get 19 through my line of questioning, which is 20 perfectly appropriate. 21 Q. Did Emmy Taylor travel with you and 22 Jeffrey to Europe? 23 A. I'm sure she did. 24 Q. What is she doing today? 25 A. I have no idea. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 56 Questions About Outfits and Sex Toys Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 56 Page 69 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 about. 3 Q. So you didn't provide her with 4 that? 5 A. As I just testified, I have no idea 6 what you are talking about. 7 Q. I was trying to interpret whether 8 you didn't understand what a school girl 9 outfit was or you are saying that didn't 10 happen? 11 A. I clearly know what a school girl 12 outfit is. I have no recollection of 13 providing anybody with a school girl outfit. 14 Q. Did you have a set of outfits used 15 by the massage therapists that would include 16 things like a school girl outfit or a black 17 patent leather outfit or anything of that 18 nature? 19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 20 and foundation. 21 A. That would be just another one of 22 Virginia's lies. 23 Q. You didn't have anything like that? 24 A. I did not. 25 Q. Did you have a basket of sex toys MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 56 Page 70 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 that you kept in the Palm Beach house? 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 4 form and foundation. 5 A. First of all what do you mean. 6 Q. A laundry basket that contained sex 7 toys in it? 8 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 9 form and foundation. 10 A. Can you ask the question again? 11 Q. Did you have a laundry basket that 12 contained sex toys in it, in the Palm Beach 13 House? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 Q. Did you have a laundry basket of 17 sex toys in the Palm Beach house? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 19 Q. You can answer. 20 A. I don't recollect anything about a 21 laundry basket of sex toys. 22 Q. Do you recollect having sex toys at 23 the Palm Beach house? 24 A. You have to define what are you 25 talking about. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 56 Questions About Plaintiff and Epstein and Sex Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 56 Page 75 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Do you recall having a basket full 3 of sex toys? 4 A. I already told you I did not. 5 Q. We were talking a moment ago about 6 Ms. Roberts and her position as a masseuse, 7 do you know what she was paid for working as 8 a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein? 9 A. I do not. 10 Q. Did you ever pay her? 11 A. I don't ever recall paying her. 12 Q. Do you know what happened during 13 the massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein 14 and Virginia Roberts? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. No. 18 Q. Were you ever present to view a 19 massage between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia 20 Roberts? 21 A. I don't recollect ever seeing 22 Virginia and Jeffrey in a massage situation. 23 Q. Do you ever recollect seeing them 24 in a sexual situation? 25 A. I never saw them in a sexual MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 56 Page 76 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 situation. 3 Q. Did you ever participate in sex 4 with Virginia Roberts and Jeffrey Epstein? 5 A. I never ever at any single time at 6 any point ever at all participated in 7 anything with Virginia and Jeffrey. And for 8 the record, she is an absolute total liar and 9 you all know she lied on multiple things and 10 that is just one other disgusting thing she 11 added. 12 Q. Did you help her obtain an 13 apartment in Palm Beach to live in? 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 15 form and foundation. 16 Q. Was that part of your 17 responsibilities for Jeffrey? 18 A. First of all, I didn't know she had 19 an apartment in Palm Beach. I only learned 20 that from the many times you guys have gone 21 to the press to sell stories, so no. 22 Q. Did you help her get a cell phone, 23 was that one of your responsibilities for 24 Jeffrey, to get her is a cell phone as part 25 of her masseuse obligations? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 56 Questions About Training Plaintiff to Recruit Girls for Massages Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 56 Page 81 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. Like I told you, I don't recall her 4 being at the house at all. 5 Q. How many homes does Jeffrey have? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 7 form and foundation. 8 A. When I was working for him, I think 9 he had six maybe. 10 Q. Would Virginia stay with him in 11 those homes? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I can only testify for when I was 15 present with him and I cannot say what she 16 did when I wasn't present with him. 17 Q. When you were present, would 18 Virginia stay in the homes with him? 19 A. I don't recall her staying in the 20 houses. 21 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to 22 recruit other girls for massages? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 24 form and foundation. 25 A. No. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 56 Page 82 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Did you train Virginia on how to 3 recruit other girls to perform sexual 4 massages? 5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 6 form and foundation. 7 A. No. And it's absurd and her entire 8 story is one giant tissue of lies and 9 furthermore, she herself has -- if she says 10 that, you have to ask her about what she did. 11 Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his 12 nipples pinched during sexual encounters? 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form 14 and foundation. 15 A. I'm not referring to any advice on 16 my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult 17 sexual things when I was with him. 18 Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, 19 would he request that the masseuse pinch his 20 nipples while he was having a massage? 21 A. I'm not talking about anything with 22 consensual adult situation. 23 Q. What about with underage -- 24 A. I am not aware of anything. 25 Q. You are not aware of Jeffrey MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 56 Questions About Ms. Maxwell’s Relationship with Mr. Epstein Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 56 Page 91 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 has perpetrated, cannot tell you what is true 3 or factual or not. 4 Q. You said you were in the home a 5 very limited time, so average in the year for 6 example, 2004, how many times would you have 7 been in his Palm Beach home? 8 A. Very hard for me to state but very 9 little. 10 Q. How about his New York home? 11 A. Same. 12 Q. Were you his girlfriend in that 13 year, in 2004? 14 A. Define what you mean by girlfriend. 15 Q. Were you in a relationship with him 16 where you would consider yourself his 17 girlfriend? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever consider yourself his 20 girlfriend? 21 A. That's a tricky question. There 22 were times when I would have liked to think 23 of myself as his girlfriend. 24 Q. When would that have been? 25 A. Probably in the early '90s. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 56 Questions About Recruiting Girls, an Underage Girl in London, and Foreign Girls Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 56 Page 97 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. First of all I resent and despise 3 the world recruit. Would you like to define 4 what you mean by recruit and by girls, you 5 mean underage people. I never had to do 6 anything with underage people. So why don't 7 you reask the question in a way that I am 8 able to answer it. 9 Q. I'm asking if you ever said that to 10 anybody. So if you don't understand the word 11 recruit and you never used that word then the 12 answer to that question would be no. 13 A. I have no memory as I sit here 14 today having used that word. 15 Q. Did you ever meet an underage girl 16 in London to introduce her to Jeffrey to 17 provide him with a massage? 18 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 19 form and foundation. 20 A. Run that past me one more time. 21 Q. Did you ever meet an underage girl 22 in London to introduce her to Jeffrey to 23 perform a massage? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Same objection. 25 A. Are you asking me if I met anybody MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 56 Page 98 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 that was underage in London specifically to 3 provide a massage to Jeffrey, is that your 4 question? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you know who Alexander Dixon is? 8 A. I don't recall her right now. 9 Q. Do you know if -- strike that. 10 During the time that you were 11 working for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any 12 foreign females, so in other words, not from 13 the United States, that were brought to 14 Jeffrey's home to perform massages? 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 16 form and foundation. 17 A. Females, what age are we talking? 18 Q. Any age. 19 A. Can you repeat the question? 20 Q. During the time you were working 21 for Jeffrey, did you ever observe any foreign 22 females of any age that were at Jeffrey's 23 home to perform a massage? 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 25 form and foundation. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 56 Page 99 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. Are you asking me if any foreigner, 3 not an American person, gave Jeffrey a 4 massage? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Well, as I sit here today, I can't 7 think of anyone who is foreign. Certainly -- 8 I just can't think of anybody right this 9 second. 10 Q. How about any foreign girls who 11 were under the age of 18? 12 A. I already testified to not knowing 13 anything about underage girls. 14 Q. Were there foreign girls who were 15 brought to Jeffrey's home by Jean Luc Brunel 16 for the purposes of providing massages? 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 18 form and foundation. 19 A. I am not aware of Jean Luc bringing 20 girls. I have not no idea what you are 21 talking about. 22 Q. You have never been around foreign 23 girls who are under the age of 18 at 24 Jeffrey's homes? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 56 Page 100 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. I already testified about not 4 knowing about underage girls. 5 Q. Did you provide any assistance with 6 obtaining visas for foreign girls that were 7 under the age of 18? 8 A. I've never participated in helping 9 people of any age to get visas. 10 Q. Did Jeffrey, was it Jeffrey's 11 preference to start a massage with sex? 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 13 form and foundation. 14 A. I think you should ask that 15 question of Jeffrey. 16 Q. Do you know? 17 A. I don't believe that was his 18 preference. I think -- you have to 19 understand, a massage -- perhaps you are not 20 really familiar with what massage is. 21 Q. I am, I don't need a lecture on 22 massage. 23 A. I think you do. 24 MR. PAGLIUCA: No question pending. 25 She will ask you another question now. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 56 Questions About Underage Girls, Sex with Jon Luc Brunel, and Outfits Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of 56 Page 116 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Were you present on the island when 3 Prince Andrew visited? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How many times? 6 A. I can only remember once. 7 Q. Were there any girls under the age 8 of 18 on the island during that one visit 9 that you remember that were not family or 10 friends of or daughters of your friends? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. 13 A. There were no girls on the island 14 at all. No girls, no women, other than the 15 staff who work at the house. Girls meaning, 16 I assume you are asking underage, but there 17 was nobody female outside of the cooks and 18 the cleaners. 19 Q. Did you, as part of your duties in 20 working for Jeffrey, ever arrange for 21 Virginia to have sex with John Luc Brunel? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. Just for the record, I have never 25 at any time, at anyplace, in any moment ever MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 56 Page 117 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 asked Virginia Roberts or whatever she is 3 called now to have sex with anybody. 4 Q. Did you ever provide Virginia 5 Roberts with an outfit, an outfit of a sexual 6 nature to wear for Les Wexner? 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 8 form and foundation. 9 A. I think we addressed the outfit 10 issue. 11 Q. I am asking you if you ever 12 provided her with an outfit of a sexual 13 nature to wear for Les Wexner? 14 A. Categorically no. You did get 15 that, I said categorically no 16 Q. Don't worry I'm paying attention. 17 A. You seemed very distracted in that 18 moment. 19 (Maxwell Exhibit 6, flight logs, 20 marked for identification.) 21 A. Do you mind if I take a break for 22 the bathroom. 23 Q. It's 11:08 and we are going to go 24 off the record now. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's now 11:09. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 56 Questions About Pictures of Naked Girls Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of 56 Page 188 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 people could use -- just like you would use 3 if you needed to go online to get something, 4 that people could use. 5 Q. Was that on a desk that you would 6 use in your work capacity when you were at 7 the house? 8 A. It was a desk, it was a room I was, 9 I didn't really use that computer. 10 Q. Were there images of naked girls 11 whether they be under the age of 18 or over 12 the age of 18 on that computer? 13 A. I have no recollection of any naked 14 people on that computer when I was there in 15 2003, we are talking. 16 Q. What about from say '99 to 2003? 17 A. No, I can't recollect any naked 18 pictures. 19 Q. Why were the computers removed from 20 the house before the search warrant was 21 executed? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 23 form and foundation. 24 A. I have no knowledge of anything 25 like that. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of 56 Questions About Topless Females Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of 56 Page 404 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 form and foundation. 3 A. I mean I've been to his -- in the 4 mid '90s, I would have communicated with 5 people who worked for him. 6 Q. Have you communicated with Leslie 7 Wexner about this case? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you ever seen a topless female 10 at any one of Jeffrey Epstein's properties? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the 12 form and foundation. You've asked this 13 question, by the way, earlier on today. 14 A. Again, I testified that there are 15 people who from time to time in the privacy 16 of a swimming pool have maybe taken a bikini 17 top off or something but it's not common and 18 certainly when I was at the house I don't 19 really recollect seeing that kind of 20 activity. 21 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Have you ever smoked cigarettes 24 with Virginia Roberts? 25 A. I don't recall smoking cigarettes MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-5 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 56 1 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S UNREDACTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply in Support of her Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Instead of allowing Ms. Giuffre to take a full and complete deposition, Defendant flatly refused to answer questions critical to the key issues in this case. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, Ms. Giuffre is not engaged in a “fishing expedition” but rather seeks to ask highly-focused questions specifically relevant to this case. In particular, Ms. Giuffre seeks to ask the Defendant questions regarding her participation in or knowledge of sexual activities connected with Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of females. Such questions are entirely appropriate in the discovery phase of this case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as confidential under the Protective Order entered in this case. As the Court is aware from previous pleadings, at the heart of this case lies the issue of Defendant’s knowledge that Ms. Giuffre was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Indeed, as the Defendant boldly acknowledges in her response (at p. 2), she intends to argue at trial that (among other things) she “never arranged for or asked [Ms. Giuffre] to have sex with anyone.” At trial, - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 2 Ms. Giuffre intends to strongly disprove Defendant’s false assertions and to demonstrate that Defendant recruited Ms. Giuffre to be involved in massages of a sexual nature with Epstein. To develop evidence to support her position, Ms. Giuffre recently deposed Defendant about the central subjects in her case. Defendant flatly refused to answer a number of questions, and for the majority of the others, gave varying versions of “I don’t recall.” For example, when faced with the police report which contains statements from approximately thirty (30) different victims during a time frame which the Defendant acknowledges she was actively working for Epstein at his various homes, Defendant challenged the veracity of the victims’ reports: “Q. Are you saying these 30 girls are lying when they gave these reports to police officers? A. I’m not testifying to their lies. I’m testifying to Virginia’s lies.” See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 89-90; 83-84. While Defendant was working with Epstein during the time period when these underage girls were visiting Jeffrey’s home, Defendant claimed to be at the house maybe once in 2005. Id. at p. 84. Yet, according to flight manifests, in that same general time period, Defendant was listed as a passenger at least eleven times either landing in or departing from West Palm Beach, Florida on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 84; see also McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Flight Logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private planes. Moreover, again according to flight logs, Defendant was on Epstein’s planes over 300 times – including 23 times with Ms. Giuffre when Ms. Giuffre was underage. Yet, quite remarkably, Defendant claimed she “couldn’t recall” even one of those flights. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 120-122. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 3 Defendant even testified that she did not recall having Ms. Giuffre at her London townhome with Prince Andrew. Defendant stuck to this incredible story despite flight logs establishing her traveling to London with Ms. Giuffre and despite a photograph the three – Ms. Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Defendant – all standing together in Defendant’s home. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 108-111. Defendant’s deposition consisted almost entirely of “I don’t recalls” or “I refuse to answer that question”1 and also included a physical outburst that knocked the court reporter’s computer off the conference room table. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at 207-208. Among the many questions that Defendant refused to answer at her deposition were a number of questions designed to show that Defendant was well aware that, for Epstein, a “massage” was actually a code word sexual activity – i.e., not a therapeutic massage but rather activity that involved sexual gratification for Epstein. Defendant refused to answer all such questions, asserting that they involved “private adult sexual relationships” which did not “relate in any way” to Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Id. at p. 4. But Defendant’s involvement in such “relationships” with Epstein would show that she knew full well the fate that was in store for Ms. Giuffre when she accepted Defendant’s invitation to come and provide “massages” to Epstein. Defendant admitted that she worked for Epstein from 1992 to 2009. See McCawley Decl. at 1 For example, when asked: “Q. Have you ever said to anybody that you recruit girls to take the pressure off you, so you won’t have to have sex with Jeffrey, have you said that? A. You don’t ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be trapped. You are asking me if I recruit. I told you no. Girls meaning underage, I already said I don’t do that with underage people and as to ask me about a specific conversation I had with language, we talking about almost 17 years ago when this took place. I cannot testify to an actual conversation or language that I used with anybody at any time.” See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Depo Tr. at p. 94-95. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 4 Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition of Defendant at p. 10-11, 410. As the Court knows, the Palm Beach Police Report demonstrates multiple incidents of “massages” being given by untrained minor children that involved sexual acts. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report. Defendant is also identified in that Palm Beach Police Report. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 75-76. And the details of Epstein’s sexual activities with Defendant (for example) are highly relevant to this case, because they will help corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that, while she was underage, she also engaged in sexual activity of an identical nature with Epstein. To allow Defendant to avoid answering these questions would preclude Ms. Giuffre from getting critical evidence in this case. Consider, for example, Defendant recruiting an eighteen year-old girl to be an “assistant,” bringing that girl to Epstein’s home, telling her she could make more money if she would give Epstein a massage, and then instructing her to give a massage that involved sexual acts. Under Defendant’s theory of discovery, Ms. Giuffre would be precluded from deposing her on that topic because the actions would culminate in “consensual adult sex.” Yet, that scenario would fully validate the pattern of events that occurred with Ms. Giuffre when she was under the age of eighteen. It would obviously show a “modus operandi” by Jeffrey Epstein and Defendant, which is clearly admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Moreover, such inquiries are crucial to impeaching the Defendant at trial. During her deposition, Defendant attempted to characterize her work for Epstein as nothing more than a normal job handling hiring for the various mansions. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, April 22, 2016 Deposition Tr. of Defendant at p. 9-12. Ms. Giuffre should be able to contest that assertion by having Defendant fully answer questions about whether that alleged “job” involved Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 5 sexual activities, including orchestrating the hiring of females and converting massages into sexual encounters. Defendant attempts to paint the picture that Ms. Giuffre somehow is interested in all sexual relationships that the Defendant may have been involved with. That is not true. Ms. Giuffre has no intention of asking unbridled questions. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre intends to ask Defendant only questions that involve the following very narrow and crucial subject areas: (1) Defendant’s sexual relationship with Epstein from 1992 to 2009 – the time period in which she worked for Jeffrey Epstein and which Epstein (with the assistance of Defendant) was engaging in sexual acts with females under the cover of “massage”; (2) Defendant’s sexual interactions with any person in Epstein’s presence during that time period; (3) Defendant’s sexual activities at Epstein’s residences, including his private island “Little St. Jeff’s,” or his aircraft during that time period; (4) Defendant’s sexual activities with identified participants in Epstein’s sexual abuse during that time period; and (5) Defendant’s sexual interactions that occurred during or through what began as a “massage”; and (6) Defendant’s interactions with females to introduce to Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of performing work, including sexual massages. Defendant claims that such questions are a mere “fishing expedition” without acknowledging the fact that these questions go to critical issues in this case. Other witnesses have testified regarding Defendant’s involvement in recruiting females for sex under the cover of a “massage.” During the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, certain household staff was deposed. Alfredo Rodriguez, who was Jeffrey Epstein’s household manager, testified that the Defendant frequently stayed in Jeffrey Epstein’s home and assisted with bringing in young girls to act as “masseuses” for Jeffrey Epstein. Q. “Okay. Going back to where we started here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have knowledge of the girls that would come over to Jeffrey Epstein’s house that are in Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 6 roughly the same age group as C. and T. (minor children) and to have a good time as you put it? A. Yes. Q. And what was her involvement and/or knowledge about that? A. She knew what was going on.” See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 176-177. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Depo Tr. at 96-101 (noting that high school age girls come to the home where Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell reside). Juan Alessi, another household employee, also testified that young girls were regularly present at Jeffrey Epstein’s home where Ghislaine Maxwell resides. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at p. 15-16, 21. Specifically, Juan Alessi informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Palm Beach Police Report at p. 57. During Juan Alessi’s November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement taken by the Palm Beach Police Department, Mr. Alessi revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Juan Alessi November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at 11-13. See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 Depo Tr. at p. 76- 77. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21. Mr. Rodriguez also testified that Defendant also had naked pictures of girls performing sexual acts on her computer. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Alfredo Rodriguez August 7, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 311-312; See also McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Juan Alessi September 8, 2009 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 7 Depo Tr. at p. 40-41 (“I know she [Maxwell] went out and took pictures in the pool because later on I would see them at the desk or at the house. And nude - 99.9 percent of the time they were topless. They were European girls.”). Q. “Did they appear to be doing any sexual? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And in these instances were there girls doing sexual things with other girls? A. Yes, ma’am. Q. And I’m still talking about the pictures on Ms. Maxwell’s computer. A. Yes, ma’am.” Upon leaving his employment, Rodriguez testified that Defendant threatened him that he should not tell anyone about what happened at the house: A. “I have to say something. Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to ever discuss or contact her again in a threaten(ing) way. Q. When was this? A. Right after I left because I call one of the friends for a job and she told me this, but, you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep her out… Q. She made a telephone call to you and what precisely did she say? A. She said I forbid you that you’re going to be – that I will be sorry if I contact any of her friends again…She said something like don’t open your mouth or something like that. I’m a civil humble, I came as an immigrant to service people, and right now you feel a little –I’m 55 and I’m afraid. First of all, I don’t have a job, but I’m glad this is on tape because I don’t want nothing to happen to me. This is the way they treat you, better do this and you shut up and don’t talk to nobody and— Q. When you say this is the way they treat, who specifically are you talking about when you say that word they? A. Maxwell. ” See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Alfredo Rodriguez July 29, 2009 Dep. Tr. at 169 – 172. In sum, at the core of this case are statements made by Ms. Giuffre that she was recruited, by Defendant, to be paid as a masseuse, yet was enticed or coerced into engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and Defendant for money. She has further explained that the recruitment of females through the offer of some legitimate position was the typical way in which Defendant and Epstein lured unsuspecting females to the house before converting the relationship into a sexual Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 8 one. Ms. Giuffre has described the frequency of these “massages”, the sexual tendencies of the participants, the manner in which the massages became sexual in nature, and Defendant’s role at each stage. In response, Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre’s entire account “untrue” and “obvious lies.” Defendant has instead tried to portray her role as nothing more than an Epstein employee performing typical household management duties. Any personal knowledge Defendant has of Epstein’s sexual tendencies, habits, and use of massage for sex is entirely relevant to either corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. Likewise, Defendant’s participation in any sexual acts with Epstein, in his presence, on his properties, using his mode of converting massages into sex, or with females will directly corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account. On the other hand, without access to the answers to these inquiries, Ms. Giuffre will be unable to expose the bias of Defendant, unable to thoroughly cross-examine Defendant’s position that she was just a lowly employee, and most importantly unable to demonstrate through the Defendant’s own admissions that Ms. Giuffre’s statements about Epstein and Defendant were absolutely true – and not “obvious lies.” Finally, Defendant fails to recognize that, for the discovery purposes at issue here, relevance “is an extremely broad concept.” Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the United States & Canada v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., No. 15CV05249GBDBCM, 2016 WL 2609307, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016). And once relevance is shown, “the party resisting discovery bears the burden of demonstrating that, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, the requests are irrelevant, or are overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive.” Id. Here, the requests are not “overly broad” as Ms. Giuffre’s specific explanations of the targets of her questions make clear. Moreover, answering the questions is not “oppressive,” particularly given the fact that Defendant has placed all substantive aspects of the Deposition under seal. Of - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 9 course, once Defendant answers the question – and her answers are placed under seal – the parties can file any further motions that may be required to determine whether the answers may be introduced at trial. CONCLUSION Defendant should be ordered to answer questions regarding sexual activity connected with Epstein’s sexual abuse and sexual trafficking organization as specifically identified above Dated: May 11, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52022 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 11th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-6 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ? n 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Case No: 08-CV-80119 Plaintiff, Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant . I JANE DOE NO. 3 / Case NO: 08-CV-80232 Plaintiff, Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I JANE DOE NO . 4, Case No: 08-CV-80380 Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant . I JANE DOE NO. 5, Case No : 08-CV-80381 Pl;:i-intiff Vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Page 1 NON PARTY (VR) 000247 GIUFFRE00093 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 9 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . l'age 2 JANE DOE NO. 6, Case No: 08-CV-80994 1 V[DEOTAPED Plaintiff1 2 DEPOSITION Vs 3 of JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 4 ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ Defendant. s 6 taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs pursuant 7 to a Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (Duces Tecum) JANE DOE NO. 7, Case No. 08-CV-80993 8 9 --- Plaintiff, 10 APPEARANCES: 11 Vs MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. JEFFREY EPSTEI N, 12 BY: STUART MERMELSTEI N, ESQ. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Defendant. 13 Suite 22 18 Miami, Florida 33160 C M.A., Case No: 08-CV-80811 14 Attorney for Jane Doe 2, 3, 4, 5, Plaintiff, 6, and 7. Vs 15 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 16 ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Defendant. BY: BRAD J. EDWARDS, ESQ., and 17 CARA HOLMES, ESQ. Las Olas City Centre JANE DOE, Case No: 08-CV- 80893 18 Suite 1650 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Plaintiff, 19 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Attorney for Jane Doe and E.W. Vs 20 And L.M. 21 JEFFREY EPSTEI N, PODHURST ORSECK 22 BY: KATHERINE W. EZELL Defendant. 25 West Flagler Street 23 Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130 24 Attorney for Jane Doe 101 and 102. 25 Page 3 JANE DOE NO. II, Case No: 08-CV-80469 1 Plaintiff, APPEARANCES: Vs 2 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 3 LEOPOLD-KUVJ N Defendant. ADAM J. LANGINO, ESQ. 4 2925 PGA Boulevard Suite 200 5 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 JANE DOE NO. 101, Case No: 09-CV-80 591 Attorney for 8.B. 6 Plaint iff, 7 RICHARD WI LLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North Vs 8 Suite 404 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Attorney for C. M.A. 10 BURMAN, CRJTTON, LUTTIER & Defendant. 11 COLEMAN, LLP BY: ROBERT CRJTTON, ESQ. JANE DOE NO. 102, Case No: 09-CV-80656 12 515 North Flagler Drive Plaintiff, Suite 400 Vs 13 West Palm Beach, Florida 3340 l JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant. 14 15 I 16 ALSO PRESENT: 17 JOE LANGSAM, V!DEOGRAPHER 1031 Ives Dairy Road 18 Suite 228 19 North Miami, Flo rida July 29, 2009 20 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 21 22 23 24 25 ' .... .. . , .... ' .. ;:-, .... :;;,;. "' = Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 71 15 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Page 4 Page 5 , "• ' ' 2 (Pages 2 to 5) NON PARTY (VR) 000248 GIUFFRE000936 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 9 Page 94 1 A. I don't remember, sir. 2 3 Q. The next page is a message in the upper lelt dated January 13, 2005, from C.W. Correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That's the same C. that we've been 6 talking about. Correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. That was at 7:30 p.m. Correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you don't recall what that particular 11 call was about. Right? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. The message dated January 20, 2005, from 14 Maria. Do you see that on the bottom right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you know who that is? 17 A. I think I have a different page. 18 Q. You're a little ahead of me. January 20, 19 2005. 20 MR. CRITTON: I think that's page 31. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't remember who she 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 was, sir. BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: Q. You don't recall what that message was about? Page 95 A. No, sir. Q. What about the next page there is a message that Eva called? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Dated January 21, 2005? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know who Eva is? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who is Eva? 10 A. The assistant comptroller from the New 11 York office. 12 Q. Do you remember her last name? 13 A. Polish last name I guess. She was 14 Russian. She is Russian actually. 15 Q. Did you ever travel to any other 16 residences that Mr. Epstein had? 17 A. No. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Are you aware he had a residence in the Virgin Islands? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: Q. And would he sometimes travel to that residence from Palm Beach? A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 Page 96 Q. Okay. Do you recall on any occasion who would travel with him to the Virgin Islands? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: No, sir. BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 6 Q. I think we were talking about the money 7 before, the household account, sometimes you gave 8 gilts? 9 A. Yes, I was told to buy some gifts. 10 Q. Forwhom? 11 A. For the guests. 12 Q. Okay. And what kind of gifts? 13 A. Shoes, sweaters, clothes. 14 Q. So were you instructed to buy something 15 in particular at a particular store? 16 A. They would go to the store, if they like 17 something I will go alter and pay them and 18 retrieve it. 19 Q. Okay. So would this be a girl who was 20 staying at the house? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. This was one of the girls who 23 travelled with Mr. Epstein to Palm Beach. 24 Correct? 25 A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Page 97 Q. And so Mr. Epstein would instruct you to go shopping with this girl? A. Yes. Q. And instructed you to pay for whatever it is she wanted to buy? A. Yes. Q. Was there a price limit or anything of that nature? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. So when the girl decided what she wanted 11 you would -- 12 A. I would write them a check. 13 Q. In that instance you would pay by check? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Any other instances where you gave gilts 16 to girls at the instruction of Mr. Epstein? 1/ f'\ , i,u, 1 v vu.:, ,~~- ,~,~, ,~~ " •~ , , .. ~, 18 told me I will buy the item. 19 Q. I'm sorry? 20 A. You know, when I was told to purchase 21 this item for them, you know, I will do that, but 22 not on any other occasions. 23 Q. What do you mean not in any locations? 24 A. Any other occasions. 25 Q. Not any other occasions. Okay. Did you 25 (Pages 94 to 97) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000271 GIUFFRE000959 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 9 Page 98 ever buy flowers for a girl? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell me about that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A. I was told to buy flowers and roses for a 10 11 12 13 14 girl performing in high school. Q. Which girl was that? A. I don't remember the name, sir. Q. What was Mr. Epstein's relationship to this girl? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I think she was an acquaintance, friend. BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: Q. She was a friend? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q. Now, she was performing at the high 17 school in what capacity? 18 A. There was like a -- like a play in the 19 graduation for high school. 20 Q. A play for graduation? 21 A. Yes, in the high school theatre there was 22 some kind of performance. 23 Q. Was it like a theatre production? 24 A. Yeah, something like that. I didn't go 25 inside so I didn't know what was going on inside. Page 99 1 Q. Why do you say it was for graduation? 2 A. Because everybody was the graduation 3 outside, there were parents, there were a lot of 4 people at the school. 5 Q. Okay. A lot of high schools have theatre 6 production companies and they put on plays. 7 Correct? 8 MR. CRITTON: Form. 9 THE WITNESS: It was towards the end of 10 the year. Well, I think I overheard that 11 there was a graduation performance of some 12 kind. 13 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 14 Q. But you didn't go in so you don't know? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. But this was a high school student you 11 were bringing me nowers w . 1s L11aL '-V" t:L.l. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Had you seen this girl before at the El 20 Brillo Way property? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. You had seen her a number of times? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. Do you recall her name? 25 A. I don't remember her name, sir. 1 2 Page 100 Q. Now, you said you never went inside the theatre? 3 A. No, sir. 4 Q. Okay. How did you get to the flower 5 store? 6 A. I called the girl to her cell and she 7 will come to the back door and I give her the 8 flowers. 9 Q. Was anyone else around at the time? 10 A. No, sir. 11 Q. And you mentioned this was a girl you had 12 seen before? 13 A. Yes. Q. Was this girl who had come to give massages to Mr. Epstein? MR. CRITTON: Form. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: I don't know if she was doing massages but she was at the house. BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: Q. What would she have been there for? A. To visit him. Q. This was a high school girl who was coming to visit Mr. Epstein at the house? A. She came to the house, I open the door and I left, you know. Page 101 1 Q. Did you take her to the kitchen like you 2 did -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So you brought her to the kitchen just 5 like you did for the girls who gave him massages. 6 Correct? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Did you ever pay her? 9 A. I don't remember, sir, but probably I 10 did . 11 12 13 MR. CRITTON: Form, move to strike, speculation. BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 14 Q. Why do you say you probably did? 15 A. Because I was the only one paying -- 16 well, not the only one but, you know, but chances - - J./ Ul,C 1 f-'OIU "'-' ~-• • -~• L -• ,_, •~-• -, 18 particular instance that I gave her money. 19 Q. Is it fair to say that the girls who came 20 to the Palm Beach residence, these are not the 21 girls who are staying there, the girls who came -- 22 were there to give massages. Correct? 23 MR. CRITTON: Form. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 BY MR. MERMELSTEIN: 26 (Pages 98 to 101) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000272 GIUFFRE00096 l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 9 Page 166 1 written down anywhere? 1 2 A. No. 2 3 Q. It's my understanding that C. and T. 3 4 either came to his house alone to visit with Mr. 4 5 Epstein or brought other girls in their age group 5 6 to Mr. Epstein. 6 7 Were you familiar with that type of 7 8 recruitment process of girls bringing other girls? 8 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. 9 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 11 12 Q. Can you tell me more about what you know 12 13 about girls bringing other girls that are 13 14 relatively the same age to come to Jeffrey 14 15 Epstein's house and to use your words, have a good 15 16 time? 16 17 MR. CRITTON: Form. 17 18 THE WITNESS: It's hard to know who they 18 19 knew. But I think that was -- they feel 19 20 better themselves when they're in a group 20 21 than going by themselves, but I don't know 21 22 somebody recruiting. 22 23 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 24 Q. Okay. And you've talked about, at least 24 25 referred to yourself I believe to the police and 25 Page 167 1 as well today as a human ATM machine. Right? 1 2 MR. CRITTON: Form. 2 3 THE WITNESS: Something like that. I was 3 4 supposed to carry cash at all times. 4 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 6 Q. One of the primary reasons why you 6 7 carried cash was to pay the girls in this age 7 8 group of C. and T. for whatever happened at the 8 9 house. Right? 9 10 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q. That's a fair statement. Right? 13 MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. EDWARDS: ay. n w ., example, would bring somebody else to the house, did you pay C. as well as whomever she brought to the house, pay them both1 A. No, I pay only one person. Q. Okay. My understanding, and tell me if this is wrong or you can corroborate this, is that Mr. Epstein would pay the girl that was actually performing whatever was happening in the room -- Page 168 for now we'll call it a massage -- as well as anybody who brought that person over to the house, they would both get paid cash. Are you familiar with that? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. If C. brought another girl over to the house and C. stayed downstairs but this other girl went upstairs with Mr. Epstein, which one would you pay? A. I don't know because I was told who to pay. Q. And Sarah Kellen always told you? A. Sarah told me pay so and so. Q. So if we were going to ask anybody else about the exact method in terms of who would get paid and for what, who would the people be? I mean, other than Mr. Epstein who else could we ask these questions? A. Sarah. Q. Sarah Kellen? A. Yes. Q. She would know this? A. Yes. Page 169 Q. What about Ghislaine Maxwell? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: You're talking about the boss. I don't know. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. To your knowledge was Ghislaine Maxwell aware of these girls that are in the age group of C. and T. coming to Jeffrey Epstein's house to have a good time? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I have to say something. Mrs. Maxwell called me and told me not to ever discuss or contact her again in a threaten way. BY MR. EDWARDS: the friends for a job and she told me this, but, you know, I feel intimidated and so I want to keep her out. Q. What exactly did she say? First of all, was this a telephone call? A. Yes, she was in New York. Q. She called you on your cell phone? A. Yes. 43 (Pages 166 to 169) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000289 GIUFFRE000978 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Page 170 Q. Is this the cell phone that was issued to you by Mr. Epstein? A. No, it was my personal phone. I was already -- Q. Gone? A. Yeah, this is three, four months down the road. Q. So if you le~ in -- A. February, March -- it was May or June. Q. Of 2005? A. Yes. Q. And you got a call from Ghislaine Maxwell out of the blue? A. Yes. Q. And do you know what prompted that telephone call? A. Because I contact somebody in New York to get a job. Q. Who was that person? A. I contact Jean-Luc and I contact Eva, the Swedish girl, she used to be very good friends with Mr. Epstein because she asked me she need somebody in New York. Q. What does Eva do? A. Eva was a model many years ago and he Page 171 married -- Eva is the mother of the girl who was on the wall. Q. Who is on the wall of Mr. Epstein's house? A. Yeah. Q. All right. There is a younger girl model that's on the wall of Mr. Epstein's house and this lady Eva is her mother? A. Yes. 10 Q. And at some point in time you called her 11 in New York to get a job7 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. And you also called Jean-Luc Bernell? 14 That's his name. Right? 15 A. Jean-Luc, yeah, I don't remember his last 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 name. l,!. uoes mat sound ram111ar to you, Jean-Luc Bernell? A. Yeah. Q. What did Eva and/ or Jean-Luc say about employing you7 A. No, they said they're going to find out and obviously the first thing they did was talk to Mrs. Maxwell. Q. She made a telephone call to you and what 1 precisely did she say? Page 172 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 A. She said I forbid you that you're going to be -- that I will be sorry if I contact any of her friends again. Q. Okay. Other than you will be sorry if you contact any of my friends again did she say anything else about what you know about Mr. Epstein and/ or what goes on at his house? A. She said something like don't open your mouth or something like that. But you have to understand, I'm a civil humble, I came as an immigrant to service people, and right now you feel a little -- I'm 55 and I'm afraid. First of all, I don't have a job, but I'm glad this is on tape because I don't want nothing to happen to me. This is the way they treat you, better do this and you shut up and don't talk to nobody and -- Q. When you say this is the way they treat, who specifically are you talking about when you say the word they? A. Maxwell. Q. And usually when you say the word they, you're not only talking about one person -- A. Wealthy people. Q. Are you also putting Jeffrey Epstein in Page 173 that category? MR. CRITTON: Form. THE WITNESS: I didn't talk to him directly most of the time. BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q. What's the reason why if you were his 7 head of security that you wouldn't have more 8 direct contact with him? Why is that? 9 MR. CRITTON: Form. 10 THE WITNESS: He wanted that way, you 11 know, so, yeah, I have to talk to Sarah, 12 Sarah is not available talk to Lesley in New 13 York. He didn't want to be disturbed. 14 BY MR. EDWARDS: 15 16 Q. Even while you were in the same house with him he still had other people you could talk 1/ i:o Oh <C\..CIY UUL I l<C vvu;;, I IV VI'"' UI ci ''-' -:- 18 A. Yeah . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. When you were fired you were not fired directly by him? A. No. Q. It was through somebody else? A. Ms. Maxwell. Q. Okay. But it was for upsetting him for taking the wrong car? "' ,, i ' ' I 44 (Pages 170 to 173) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000290 GIUFFRE000979 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l/ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 174 Page 176 !' A. Yes. 1 this. Because I went through -- the first li Q. Okay. Ever since this communication that 2 time I went to the deposition I was in Palm Ms. Maxwell made to you where she called you 3 Beach and I did my duty, I mean, I tell what sometime in May or June of 2005, and have you felt 4 I know, but now I know there is more ii threatened? 5 digging, all I want is this to be to get on _' A. Yes. 6 with my normal life and stuff. MR. CRITTON: Form. 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: BY MR. EDWARDS: 8 Q. So when you come here today to testify, Q. Have you felt reluctant to come forward 9 your main objective is to get back to your normal and give truthful, honest, and full disclosure of 10 life and get out of the spotlight of this case. all information that you know about this case? 11 Yes? MR. CRITTON: Form. 12 A. Yes. THE WITNESS: I said this off the record 13 Q. And in doing so have you held back some but I will say it on the record, being in 14 of the details that you know about that happened the Epstein case for me resulted in two 15 in this case to remove yourself from the years I have -- I won't bring the names but 16 spotlight? I was in the third interview to get hired as 17 MR. CRITTON: Form. a household manager in Palm Beach and they 18 THE WITNESS: No, sir. told me you are the Jeffrey Epstein guy. 19 BY MR. EDWARDS: Not in the sense I did something wrong 20 Q. Okay. Have you ever talked to Ghislaine because of the scandal, so they shun the job 21 Maxwell after that telephone call where she cal led away from me. And so I was afraid that -- 22 you and you felt threatened? this is very powerful people and one phone 23 A. No. call and you finish, so I'm the little guy. 24 Q. Okay. So going back to where we started Even I'm wearing a tie I'm a -- I'm talking 25 here was, does Ghislaine Maxwell have knowledge of , Page 175 Page 177 from my heart. This is the way it is. 1 the girls that would come over to Jeffrey BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Epstein's house that are in roughly the same age Q. I feel for you, I'm sorry that you have 3 group as C. and T. and to have a good time as you to be in this position. 4 put it? MR. CRITTON: Move to strike this. 5 MR. CRITTON: Form. BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. Well, when you applied for these jobs and 7 BY MR. EDWARDS: they turned you down and gave you the reason that 8 Q. And what was her involvement and/or ,, you're the person involved in the Jeffrey Epstein 9 knowledge about that? scandal, was it that they are associated or 10 MR. CRITTON: Form . friends with Jeffrey Epstein or is it that you 11 THE WITNESS: She knew what was going on. have information and you have this confidentiality 12 BY MR. EDWARDS: but you're revealing some certain information that 13 Q. You referred to her at one point in time Mr. Epstein would not like? 14 as Jeffrey Epstein's companion. But then later on MR. CRITTON: Form. 15 you said that if she flew she flew on a different THE WITNESS: Both. 16 airplane and oftentimes or sometimes she slept in OT 1v1K. ~ 1/ a Ull1c:1c:1IL ueu 1ru1111•11. C:[J:,Lt:111. ...,;u LI•~·~~~·" Q. Both? 18 unusual to you? A. Both. 19 MR. CRITTON: Form. Q. And since then given what you just told 20 THE WITNESS: It was odd but, I mean, and us about these people being very powerful, are you 21 again, everything is odd in Palm Beach. afraid for your life given the fact that you're 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: involved to some extent in this case7 23 Q. Okay, I don't mean to laugh. MR. CRITTON: Form. 24 A. Mr. Epstein fly to Jet Aviation, she fly THE WITNESS: I just start thinking about 25 to Galaxy Aviation, but they never flew the same I\ 45 (Pages 174 to 177) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000291 GIUFFRE000980 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 266 BY MR. LANGI NO: Q. Are you currently in fear of Mr. Epstein? A. Not at this particular moment but it's something I have to be worry about, yes. Q. Are you personally afraid of criminal prosecution? A. No. Q. Do you believe that you did anything illegal7 A. Illegal, no. MR. LANGINO: I have no further questions. Thank you. MR. CRITTON: We're going to break in about 15 minutes. Do you want to start and go for 15 minutes or do you want to -- it's up to you. MS. EZELL: I'll start. MR. WILLITS: When are we going to quit, folks? MR. CRITTON: In 15 minutes. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Might as well change tapes. MR. EDWARDS: Bob has to get back so we've agreed we're going to come back some other time. Page 267 MR. WILLITS: Why don't we just stop now? MS. EZELL: Okay. MR. EDWARDS: Rather than you start. MS. EZELL: Yeah, I won't get very far. MR. EDWARDS: Sorry to do this with you, we didn't finish. MR. CRITTON: So we're stopped? MR. EDWARDS: We're stopped. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. (Thereupon, the videotaped deposition was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.) THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ) COUNTY OF DADE. ) I, the undersigned authority, certify 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 that ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ personally appeared before me on the 29th day of July, 2009 and was duly 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sworn. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 31st day of July, 2009. MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter Notary Public - State of Florida 1 CERTIFICATE 2 The State Of Florida, ) 3 County Of Dade. ) 4 5 I, MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at 6 large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the videotaped 7 deposition of ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ; that a review of the transcript was requested; and that the 8 foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 269, inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of 9 my stenographic notes of said deposition. 10 I further certify that said videotaped deposition was taken at the time and place 11 hereinabove set forth and that the taking or said videotaped deposition was commenced and completed 12 as hereinabove set out. 13 I further certify that r am not an attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am 14 I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected with the action, nor am 15 I financially interested in the action. l b I ne 1oregomg cer111 1cat1on o: mis transcript does not apply to any reproduction of 17 the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying 18 reporter. 19 DATED this 31st day of July, 2009. 20 21 22 23 24 25 MlCHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter Page 269 68 (Pages 266 to 269) Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688 7115 Rue Notre Dame, Miami Beach, FL 33141 NON PARTY (VR) 000314 GIUFFRE00 1003 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-7 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 9 1 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THREE DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS BY MEANS OTHER THAN PERSONAL SERVICE Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service. The three persons to be subpoenaed – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova – were each involved in the sexual abuse and sexual trafficking at issue in this case. It appears that all three of them have evaded attempts to personally serve them (and two of the persons, Epstein and Kellen, have attorneys who have not been authorized by their clients to accept service). Ms. Giuffre seeks leave to provide service by several alternative means that are designed to assure actual notice is provided to these persons. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Composite Exhibit 1, Subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen (aka Sarah Kensington and Sarah Vickers) and Nadia Marcinkova. This Court has repeatedly held that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 permits alternative service in appropriate circumstances, and this case presents such circumstances. Accordingly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to serve deposition subpoenas by alternative means. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 12 2 BACKGROUND At the heart of this case lies Ms. Giuffre’s allegations that that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre has also alleged that Epstein and the Defendant were aided by others who played keys roles in the sex trafficking organization, including Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Defendant has called Ms. Giuffre a “liar” and Ms. Giuffre is now in the process of assembling testimony and evidence to prove the truth of her allegations. Apart from the Defendant in this case, Jeffrey Epstein is the most important person for Ms. Giuffre to depose. It was Epstein who gave the directions to Maxwell to recruit Ms. Giuffre and bring her to Epstein’s mansions to be sexually abused. At several points during her recent deposition, Ms. Maxwell refused to answer Ms. Giuffre’s questions about Epstein, but instead told her she should go ask Epstein about the subject. See, e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr. 22, 2016) at 100 (“Q: … [W]as it Jeffrey’s preference to start a massage with sex? . . . A: I think you should ask that question of Jeffrey.”); id. at 146-47 (“Q: So would [Ms. Giuffre] be brought on trips that were for the purpose of work and decorating the house? A: Like I said, I never worked with her but you would have to ask Jeffrey what he brought her on the trip for.”); id. at 389-90 (“Q: Does [Epstein] . . . have any knowledge of any illegal activity that you’ve conducted? . . . A: If you want to ask Jeffrey questions about me, you would have to ask him.”). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2. Because of Epstein’s importance to this case, Ms. Giuffre has diligently tried to personally serve Epstein with a subpoena for his deposition. Epstein, however, appears to have no interest in answering questions under oath about the scope of his sex trafficking organization and he has not authorized his lawyer to accept service of the subpoena. On March 7, 2016, Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 12 3 Giuffre’s counsel contacted counsel for Epstein to seek agreement that he would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Electronic Correspondence to Attorney Marty Weinberg. Ms. Giuffre was unable to obtain that agreement so she retained an investigative company to attempt to locate Epstein for purposes of personal service1 . As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group Investigators commenced efforts to personally serve Epstein on April 26, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4 Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have continued for weeks, and included over sixteen (16) attempts to personally serve Epstein, including as recently as May 18, 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of Epstein’s residence and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of his New York addresses along with a witness check. Counsel for Ms. Giuffre also provided a copy of the subpoena to Marty Weinberg, Epstein’s attorney. Jeffrey Epstein is not the only key witness who has been evading Ms. Giuffre’s efforts to depose them. The next echelon in the sex trafficking organization below Epstein and the Defendant includes Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. Ms. Giuffre alleges that they were heavily involved in the sex trafficking. Both Kellen and Marcinkova appear repeatedly on the flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein’s aircraft. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida specifically identified both Kellen and Marcinkova as among four named “potential co￾conspirators of Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Epstein as part of his guilty plea to Florida state sex offense charges. See Non-Prosecution Agreement, In re: Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein at 7. Additionally, both Kellen and Marcinkova previously 1 As recently as today, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel continues to attempt to negotiate acceptance of service of the subpoena for Mr. Epstein, which now includes a request that his deposition take place in the U.S. Virgin Islands but has still not received an agreement to accept service. See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Correspondence with Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 12 4 invoked their 5th amendment privileges when asked about their involvement in Epstein and Defendant’s sex trafficking ring. At her recent deposition, Defendant appeared to be well aware of the fact that Epstein had potential co-conspirators. See,e.g., Tr. of Depo. of Defendant (Apr. 22, 2016) at 49 (“Q: Are you aware that Sarah Kellen was . . . named as a co-conspirator in the case involving Jeffrey Epstein? . . . A: I am aware.”). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2. As with Epstein, however, Kellen and Marcinkova appear to be evading efforts to serve them. On March 31, 2016, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel reached out to Sarah Kellen’s counsel to seek agreement that she would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinhart, of McDonald Hopkins, LLP in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Reinhart represented that Ms. Kellen refused to allow her counsel to accept service of the subpoena, so Ms. Giuffre was forced to commence the efforts to attempt to personally serve her with the subpoena. As explained in the attached affidavit, the Alpha Group Investigators commenced efforts to personally serve Kellen on April 26, 2016. See McCawley Decl. at 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Those efforts have continued with over nineteen (19) attempts at service and concluded as recently as May 18, 2016, at which time the investigator affixed the subpoena to the front door of Kellen’s residence and mailed copies of the subpoena to both of her New York addresses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel also provided a copy of the subpoena to Kellen’s attorney. Marcinkova has also been evading service. Ms. Giuffre has had her investigators make efforts to attempt to personally serve Marcinkova at her New York residence, and also made efforts to try to personally serve her while on a trip to California, but has been unable to obtain personal service. Ms. Giuffre’s investigators made over ten (10) attempts to personally serve Marcinkova. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 12 5 Investigator Alpha Group. In addition, counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept service as he no longer represents her. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Electronic Correspondence with Jack Goldberger, at Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., in West Palm Beach, Florida. In other litigation relating to Jeffrey Epstein, both Marcinkova and Kellen asserted their fifth amendment rights when asked questions about Defendant’s recruitment of underage girls. Q Do you know Ghislaine Maxwell? A Fifth. Q Is that somebody who helped Jeffrey Epstein to devise the scheme to allow him access to various and a variety of underage minor females? A Fifth. Q Is Sarah Kellen somebody that was also involved in the planning of this scheme to gain access to underage minor females? A Fifth. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 29-30 (GIUFFRE001171-1172) Q Isn’t it true that yourself, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen had access to a master of list of underage minor females names and phone numbers so they could be called for the purpose of coming to Jeffrey Epstein’s house to be sexually molested? A Fifth. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 33-34 (GIUFFRE001173) Q Do you know Jane Doe-102 [Virginia Giuffre]? A Fifth. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48 (GIUFFRE001176) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 12 6 Q Are you aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual interaction with Jane Doe-102 when she was a minor? Q This is one of many underage minor females that was trafficked basically around the globe to be sexually exploited and abused; is that correct? A Fifth. Q Was that typical of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to sexually abuse minors on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane? A Fifth. Q And also typical of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein to prostitute or pimp out underage minors to friends? A Fifth. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 47-48 (GIUFFRE001176) Q Ghislaine Maxwell is somebody who you know to be bi-sexual, true? A Fifth. Q You know that Ghislaine Maxwell engaged in sexual acts with underage minor females, true? A Fifth. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Nadia Marcinkova April 13, 2010 Dep. Tr. at p. 58-59 (GIUFFRE001179) Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell introduce you to Jeffrey Epstein for the first time? THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p.21 (GIUFFRE001676) Q. All right. All right. Ms. Kellen, would you agree with me that there was an agreement between Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, yourself and Nadia Marcinkova to bring in girls from out of state that were underage? THE WITNESS: On the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment right. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 38 (GIUFFRE001680) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 12 7 Q. Would you agree with me that Ghislaine Maxwell provides underage girls to Mr. Epstein for sex? THE WITNESS: Upon the instruction of my lawyer, I must invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, Sarah Kellen March 24, 2010 Dep. Tr. p. 100 (GIUFFRE001695). Both Marcinkova and Kellen are key witnesses in this action because they were present with Mr. Epstein and Maxwell during the time period when Virginia Giuffre was with Epstein and Maxwell. ARGUMENT A. The Court Should Permit Alternative Service In the unique circumstances of this case, this Court should grant Ms. Giuffre leave to serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova via means other than personal service, because they are evading service of process and there are other means to assure actual notice. Under Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[s]erving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person . . . .” The purpose of “requiring delivery to a named person is to ‘ensure receipt, so that notice will be provided to the recipient, and enforcement of the subpoena will be consistent with the requirements of due process.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 293, 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Med. Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. CareCore Nat., LLC, Nos. 06 Civ. 7764 & 06 Civ. 13516, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.15, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also First City, Texas-Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 197 F.R.D. 250, 255 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding that attaching a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule “liberally” to allow service so long as the “the type of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 12 8 service used ‘was calculated to provide timely actual notice.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., 262 F.R.D. at 304 (quoting CareCore, 2008 WL 3833238, at *2 (noting that “nothing in the word ‘delivering’ [in Rule 45(b)(1)] indicates personal service, and a personal service requirement can be unduly restrictive”); see also Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld, No. 99 Civ. 3200, 2000 WL 10268, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CIV. 9116(PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009) (“this Court joins other courts in this District in holding that effective service [of a deposition subpoena] under Rule 45 is not limited to personal service” (internal quotation omitted). A prerequisite for using means other than personal service is typically that the party “requesting the accommodation diligently attempted to effectuate personal service.” OceanFirst Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 752, 754 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (citing Franklin v. State Farm Afire and Casualty Co., 2009 WL 3152993, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2009). Here, Ms. Giuffre has diligently attempted to make personal service on each of the three individuals, having made multiple attempts to personal service them, including going to different locations at different times on different days, and attempting to reach them through their attorneys. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Indeed, it appears that the only reason that personal service has been unsuccessful thus far is that the important witnesses Ms. Giuffre is attempting to serve are fully aware of her efforts and are attempting to evade service. This Court will recall that efforts to evade service are a familiar practice of Jeffrey Epstein and his colleagues. As described in earlier pleadings in this case, for example, the Defendant herself refused to comply with a deposition subpoena in an earlier case Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 12 9 brought by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual assault victims. See Decl. of Sigrid McCawley at Composite Exhibit 9, Maxwell Deposition Notice; Subpoena and Cancellation Payment Notice, and January 13, 2015 Daily Mail Article. Ms. Giuffre proposes that she be permitted to serve her deposition notices by means other than personal service. Ms. Giuffre asks this Court to rule that she be permitted to serve each of the three individuals in ways that are reasonably calculated to give them actual notice. The specific means that Ms. Giuffre proposes are the means that her investigators took on May 18th of posting the subpoenas to the addresses associated with each of the witnesses and mailing the subpoenas to those addresses with the witness fee check and providing copies of the subpoenas via e-mail to the witnesses known counsel. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Affidavit of Douglas G. Mercer, Chief Investigator Alpha Group. Means such as those described above have been approved by this Court in other cases. For example, in Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore National, LLC, 2008 WL 3833238 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Katz, J.), this Court allowed service of a deposition subpoena to be made through mailing a copy of the subpoena to the witness’ place of employment along with a copy of the Court’s order directing the witness to comply with the subpoena or face sanctions. Id. at *3. Similarly, in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CIV. 9116(PGG), 2009 WL 1313259, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2009), this Court allowed service of a deposition subpoena to be made by sending a copy of the deposition subpoena to the witness’ place of business and residence by certified mail; leaving a copy of the deposition subpoena at the witness’ residence and place of business with a person of suitable age and discretion; and remitting a copy of the deposition subpoena by electronic mail and certified mail to counsel for a related corporation. And, in at least two cases, this Court has found that certified mailing of a Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 12 10 subpoena to the witness alone satisfies Rule 45. See Cordius Trust v.. Kummerfeld, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19980, *5–*6 (S.D.N.Y.1999); Ultradent Products, Inc. v. Hayman, No. M8-85 RPP, 2002 WL 31119425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002). Here, the means of service exceed those approved in those other cases and should be permitted. CONCLUSION Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova with deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service. As Ms. Giuffre has made multiple attempts at personal service, Ms. Giuffre should be granted leave to serve deposition subpoenas by the means employed by her investigators of posting the subpoenas to the known locations and also sending the subpoenas via U.S. mail. Dated: May 25, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 12 11 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52022 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 12 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 25th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Copies of this filing were also provided by e-mail to: Marty Weinberg, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein Bruce Reinhart counsel for Sarah Kellen /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-8 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES __________________________/ JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4’S MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION COME NOW Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 (also referred to as “the new victims”), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to join this action, on the condition that they not re-litigate any issues already litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as “the current victims”). The new victims have suffered the same violations of their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) as the current victims. Accordingly, they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well. Because the new victims will not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by the current victims (and because they are represented by the same legal counsel as the current victims), the Government will not be prejudiced if the Court grants the motion. The Court may “at any time” add new parties to the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Accordingly, the Court should grant the motion.1 1 As minor victims of sexual offenses, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 desire to proceed by way of pseudonym for the same reasons that Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceeded in this Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court is aware, more than six years ago, Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the Government, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. DE1. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein. The Court has firmly rejected the United States’ position. In a detailed ruling, the Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though federal charges were never filed. DE 189. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had “standing” to assert violations of the CVRA rights. Id. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Id. Two other victims, who are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims, now wish to join this action. The new victims joining at this stage will not cause any delay and their joinder in this case is the most expeditious manner in which to pursue their rights. Because the background regarding their abuse is relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether to allow them to join, their circumstances are recounted here briefly. fashion. Counsel for the new victims have made their true identities known to the Government. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 2 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 3 Jane Doe #3’s Circumstances As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA. If allowed to join this action, Jane Doe #3 would prove the following: In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell, one of the main women whom Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme. In fact, it became known to the government that Maxwell herself regularly participated in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors, including Jane Doe #3. Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe #3 (who was then fifteen years old) to come to Epstein’s mansion in a fashion very similar to the manner in which Epstein and his other co-conspirators coerced dozens of other children (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2). When Jane Doe #3 began giving Epstein a “massage,” Epstein and Maxwell turned it into a sexual encounter, as they had done with many other victims. Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred to as a “sex slave.” Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 through 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach, but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on his Epstein’s private planes, and elsewhere. Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 3 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 4 (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. 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. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Deshowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to “any potential co￾conspirators of Epstein.” NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other members of Epstein’s defense team) and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein’s victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Ghislaine Maxwell was another person in Epstein’s inner circle and a co-conspirator in Epstein’s sexual abuse. She was someone who consequently also appreciated the immunity granted by the NPA for the crimes she committed in Florida. In addition to participating in the Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 4 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 5 sexual abuse of Jane Doe #3 and others, Maxwell also took numerous sexually explicit pictures of underage girls involved in sexual activities, including Jane Doe #3. She shared these photographs (which constituted child pornography under applicable federal laws) with Epstein. The Government is apparently aware of, and in certain instances possesses some of these photographs. Perhaps even more important to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse ring, Maxwell had direct connections to other powerful individuals with whom she could connect Epstein. For instance, one such powerful individual Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was a member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew (a/k/a Duke of York). Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sexual relations with this Prince when she was a minor in three separate geographical locations: in London (at Ghislaine Maxwell’s apartment), in New York, and on Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (in an orgy with numerous other under-aged girls). Epstein instructed Jane Doe #3 that she was to give the Prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doe #3 to report back to him on the details of the sexual abuse. Maxwell facilitated Prince Andrew’s acts of sexual abuse by acting as a “madame” for Epstein, thereby assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe #3 (and numerous other young girls) for sexual purposes. Another person in Epstein’s inner circle of friends (who becomes apparent with almost no investigative effort) is Jean Luc Brunel. Epstein sexually trafficked Jane Doe #3 to Jean Luc Brunel many times. Brunel was another of Epstein’s closest friends and a regular traveling companion, who had many contacts with young girls throughout the world. Brunel has been a model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 5 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 6 passports for young girls to “work” as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls “modeling” jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money. Epstein forced Jane Doe #3 to observe him, Brunel and Maxwell engage in illegal sexual acts with dozens of underage girls. Epstein also forced Jane Doe #3 to have sex with Brunel on numerous occasions, at places including Epstein’s mansion in West Palm Beach, Little St. James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands (many including orgies that were comprised of other underage girls), New York City, New Mexico, Paris, the south of France, and California. Epstein also trafficked Jane Doe #3 for sexual purposes to many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to describe the events that she had with these men so that he could potentially blackmail them. The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3’s relationship to Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1, and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from Jane Doe #3 – all in violation of her rights under the CVRA – to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA that would have shed tremendous public light on Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 6 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 7 and other powerful individuals and that would likely have been prevented it from being concluded in the secretive manner in which it was. Jane Doe #4’s Circumstances If permitted to join this action, Jane Doe #4 would allege, and could prove at trial, that she has CVRA claims similar to those advanced by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, based on the following: As with the other Jane Does, Jane Doe #4 was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein. In or around the summer of 2002, Jane Doe #4, an economically poor and vulnerable sixteen-year￾old child, was told by another one of Epstein’s underage minor sex abuse victims, that she could make $300 cash by giving an old man a massage on Palm Beach. An acquaintance of Jane Doe #4 (also a minor sexual abuse victim of Epstein) telephoned Epstein and scheduled Jane Doe #4 to go to Epstein’s house to give him a massage. During that call, Epstein himself got on the phone (a means of interstate communication) with Jane Doe #4, asking her personally to come to his mansion in Palm Beach. Jane Doe #4 then went to Epstein’s mansion and was escorted upstairs to Epstein’s large bathroom by one of Epstein’s assistants. Shortly thereafter Jeffrey Epstein emerged and lay face down on the table and told Jane Doe #4 to start massaging him. Epstein asked Jane Doe #3 her age and she told him she had recently turned sixteen. Epstein subsequently committed illegal sexual acts against Jane Doe #4 on many occasions. Epstein used a means of interstate communication (i.e., a cell phone) to arrange for these sexual encounters. Epstein also frequently travelled in interstate commerce (i.e., on his personal jet) for purposes of illegally sexually abusing Jane Doe #4. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 7 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 12 January. In the meantime, however, counsel for the victims believe that it is no longer appropriate to delay filing this motion and accordingly file it at this time. Because the Government is apparently opposing this motion, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 have described the circumstances surrounding their claims so that the Court has appropriate information to rule on the motion. CONCLUSION Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 should be allowed to join this action, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their joinder should be conditioned on the requirement that they not re-litigate any issues previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. A proposed order to that effect is attached to this pleading. DATED: December 30, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@pathtojustice.com And Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 12 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 13 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on December 30, 2014, on the following using the Court’s CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafaña 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: Dexter.Lee@usdoj.gov E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafana@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the Government /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 279 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 13 of 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-9 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S NON-REDACTED MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT IN FEDERAL RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Tel: (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 28 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................2 A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre. .........................................................4 1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 Hours) ......................................................................4 2. Johanna Sjoberg (3 ½ Hours). .....................................................................9 B. Future Depositions Sought By Ms. Giuffre...........................................................11 3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ Hours). ...........................................................................11 4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ Hours) ..........................................................................12 5. David Rodgers (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................12 6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ Hours)........................................................................12 7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ Hours). ...................................................................13 8. Ross Gow (3 ½ Hours). .............................................................................13 9. Dana Burns (3 ½ Hours)............................................................................13 10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ Hours).....................................................................13 11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ Hours)...........................................................14 12. Michael Reiter (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................14 13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ Hours). .......................................................................15 14. Alexandra Hall (3 ½ Hours). .....................................................................15 15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ Hours).................................................................16 16. Sarah Kellen Vickers (3 ½ Hours). ...........................................................16 17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ Hours).......................................................................17 II. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 28 ii CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................22 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 28 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases In re Weatherford International Sec. Litigation, No. 11 CIV. 1646 (LAK) (JCF), 2013 WL 5762923 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013).......................19 LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................................21 Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................19 Scott v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 298 F.R.D. 400 (N.D. Iowa 2014).............................................................................................19 Other Authorities Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 ...............................................................................................17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 ...............................................................................................19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 28 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion to take approximately seven additional depositions in this case beyond the presumptive ten deposition limit. Ms. Giuffre’s requests is still within the total number of hours allowed by the ten deposition limit because the parties have agreed that they will split the time for all third party witnesses such that Ms. Giuffre will only be expending at most 3 ½ hours at those additional depositions. In an abundance of caution, even though Ms. Giuffre will not likely be exceeding the total number of hours allowed for depositions, she seeks leave from this Court to confirm that she may proceed with the additional depositions for the reasons stated below. Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited females for Mr. Epstein, including underage females like herself, under the guise of working in a legitimate position - such as an assistant or as a massage therapist - only to almost immediately be coerced or enticed into engaging in sex for money. Defendant has challenged the veracity of Ms. Giuffre, and appears to intend to argue that Ms. Giuffre cannot support the allegation that Ms. Maxwell recruited females for Mr. Epstein or that the females were coerced or enticed into sex. The sexual abuse that lies at the heart of this case took place behind closed doors – doors of Jeffrey Epstein’s various private mansions. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Giuffre must find supporting circumstantial evidence to support her claims. Moreover, because Mr. Epstein and Defendant were travelling between Mr. Epstein's numerous homes and thus many of the events relevant to this case took place more than 100 miles from the courthouse, Ms. Giuffre cannot compel most of the witnesses to appear via a trial subpoena. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre seeks leave to take more than the standard ten depositions in this case. At this time, she seeks leave to take seven additional depositions, as articulated below.2 2 Ms. Giuffre’s counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel both in person and by phone in an effort to obtain agreement to proceed with these depositions but was unable to obtain an agreement. See Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 28 2 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Court is aware of the scope of this case from earlier pleadings and numerous hearings. Initially, Ms. Giuffre anticipated the scope of discovery on this case would be narrow, because many of the events (such as flying to London on one of Epstein’s planes with Maxwell) were supported by seemingly indisputable evidence, such as flight logs, and because the Defendant’s counsel initially suggested that she may invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, during her recent deposition, Defendant simply failed to recall many of the most significant events in this case or refused to respond directly to many important questions. As a result, Ms. Giuffre is now in a position where she has to call multiple witnesses to establish fundamental facts in the case. For example, Defendant would not even admit that the initials “GM” which are on the private plane flight logs over 300 times, represent her initials for McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley to Laura Menninger and Jeff Pagliuca with proposed deposition calendar. Ms. Giuffre’s ability to determine exactly which depositions would need to be taken was hamstrung by the Defendant’s refusal to sit for her deposition. As the Court will recall, Ms. Giuffre made efforts to set Defendant’s deposition starting in February 2016, yet Defendant did not sit for her deposition until after being ordered by the Court on April 22, 2016. During that deposition, Defendant refused to answer a number of questions and refused to acknowledge basic facts in this case, thereby causing Ms. Giuffre to have to depose a number of unanticipated witnesses. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel started conferring with Defendant’s counsel in February 2016 and has actively engaged in discussion about these depositions that Ms. Giuffre knew she needed to take. On May 9, 2016, the parties conferred regarding deposition scheduling and Ms. Giuffre noticed depositions in accordance with the dates and locations that Defendant’s counsel said were available, and, on May 17, 2016, provided her with a calendar outlining those dates. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. Ms. Maxwell waited until one day before the first deposition scheduled to take place on May 31, 2016 to inform Ms. Giuffre’s counsel that she refuses to attend the deposition of this subpoenaed witness unless Ms. Giuffre drops her request to seek additional depositions by way of this motion. “If you intend to seek more than 10 depositions or to continue the discovery cut-off post July 1, then we will not be appearing at the depositions next week…” See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, May 27, 2016 e-mail Correspondence from Laura Menninger to Bradley Edwards. This obstruction of discovery by refusing to attend subpoenaed depositions that were noticed to her about one month ago on May 4, 2016 should not be condoned. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, May 4, 2016 Notice of Service and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. Defendant’s counsel is also apparently refusing to appear at the other two depositions set for next week, of Maria Alessi set for Wednesday, June 1, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016 and Dave Rodgers set for Friday, June 3, 2016 and originally noticed on May 4, 2016. While Ms. Giuffre had originally hoped to be able to conclude discovery on July 1, 2016, Defendant’s refusal to attend depositions and agree to scheduling is putting Ms. Giuffre in a position where she will need additional time to complete discovery. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, May 26, 2016 Letter from Sigrid McCawley. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 28 3 Ghislaine Maxwell. Therefore, Ms. Giuffre is now required to take the deposition of pilot Dave Rodgers to authenticate his pilot logs and the identity of the individuals on various flights. In addition, as the Court knows, this case involves allegations that Ms. Giuffre was a victim of sexual abuse when she was under the age of 18 after being recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre has alleged that Defendant recruited her and other young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with Jeffrey Epstein by lying to them and telling them that the job was to be her personal assistant or a massage therapist. That was a ruse. Instead, Defendant recruited these females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein and, often, with herself, and “massage” was a euphemism for sex in Defendant’s household. Defendant has stated that these claims are obvious lies. Aside from the deposition of the Defendant, Ms. Giuffre has taken the deposition of one other witness, Johanna Sjoberg, on May 18, 2016. Ms. Sjoberg testified that, while a twenty￾year-old college student with no massage training, Ms. Maxwell, a stranger to her, approached her on her college campus, and told her she would hire Ms. Sjoberg as her personal assistant. After Ms. Sjoberg began to work for Defendant inside the home she shared with Epstein, Defendant revealed that Ms. Sjoberg’s true “job” was to complete sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant was explicit with her instructions, at one point scolding Ms. Sjoberg for failing to “finish [her] job” after Ms. Sjoberg massaged Epstein without completing the sex act, and because of this failure, Defendant, instead, had to “finish [her] job for her” and cause Epstein and complete the sex act. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. Accordingly, in this manner, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other witnesses to show the veracity of her claim that Defendant recruited young females, unexperienced in massage, for sex with Jeffrey Epstein, proving that Defendant was lying when she called Ms. Giuffre a liar, and knew Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 28 4 at the time she made the defamatory statement that it was untrue. Testimony like that from Ms. Sjoberg’s refutes Defendant’s testimony, and goes to her credibility, and goes to the claim at the center of this case. Additionally, to prove Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, that span multiple years, on multiple continents, and multiple locations, Ms. Giuffre has arranged a series of depositions of persons with direct knowledge of the relevant issues. To prove her case, Ms. Giuffre believes that a minimum of seventeen depositions will be required. In reviewing this list of depositions, it is important to understand that only one of them – the Defendant’s – will consume a full seven hours of questioning by Ms. Giuffre’s counsel, as permitted under the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Apart from the Defendant’s deposition, all of the other depositions set by Ms. Giuffre have been pursuant to an agreement with Defendant’s counsel that Ms. Giuffre will be given half of the seven hours to ask questions. In the descriptions below, the time Ms. Giuffre will have to ask questions (or thus far has asked questions) is indicated: A. Depositions Taken Thus Far By Ms. Giuffre 1. Ghislaine Maxwell (7 hours). The defendant, of course, has relevant information in this case. But when Defendant was deposed, she refused to answer numerous questions about alleged adult consensual sex. Those refusals are currently before the Court in a pending motion to compel. DE 155. And, more broadly, Defendant’s deposition makes it clear that she intends to contest many of the points that earlier had appeared to be potentially uncontested. For example, in pleadings before her deposition, Defendant had suggested that she might invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during questioning. Indeed, just a week before her deposition, Defendant filed a motion seeking the alternative relief of staying further proceedings so that she could get more information about whether to take the Fifth. See DE 101 at 2-4. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 28 5 During her deposition, however, Defendant did not take the Fifth. Instead, she testified that she suffered from a series of memory lapses and could not recall many of the key issues in dispute in this case. As a result of Defendant’s inability to remember events, a variety of issues are now in dispute. For example, at her deposition, Defendant indicated that she lacked recollection of or was otherwise unable to specifically answer the following questions: ! Whether Defendant observed a female under the age of 18 at Jeffrey Epstein’s home in Palm Beach. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 6, Maxwell Depo. at 29. ! Whether Defendant had meet Ms. Giuffre and introduced her to Epstein. Id. at 33. ! Whether Defendant, in 2011, could recall having met Ms. Giuffre at the Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and then writing that fact in an email. Id. at 35. ! Whether, when Defendant first met . ! Whether Defendant could recall being on a plane with and Ms. Giuffre. . ! Whether the Defendant knew what Nadia Marcinkova was doing at Epstein’s mansion. Id. at 41, 44. ! Whether Defendant knew the nature of the relationship between Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Id. at 47-48. ! Whether Defendant knew that Sarah Kellen recruited girls under the age of 18 to come to Epstein’s mansions. Id. at 56-57. ! Whether massage therapists at Epstein’s mansions performed sexual acts. Id. at 52-54. ! Whether Defendant knew the age of Eva Dubin when she (Dubin) met Epstein. Id. at 58- 59. ! Whether Defendant advised Johanna Sjoberg that she (Sjoberg) could obtain extra money if she massaged Epstein. Id. at 61. ! Whether Defendant introduced Sjoberg to Prince Andrew. Id. at 63. ! Whether Defendant could recall Emmy Taylor brought masseuses to Epstein’s mansion. Id. at 67. - r---------- '--------■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 28 6 ! Whether Defendant knew what Ms. Giuffre was required to wear while providing massages to Epstein. Id. at 68-69. ! Whether Defendant could recall having a laundry basket of sex toys in Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, as described by Juan Alessi. Id. at 70-75. ! Whether Defendant could recall paying Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 75. ! Whether Defendant was ever present to view Ms. Giuffre massaging Epstein. Id. at 75. ! Whether Defendant could recall telling Ms. Giuffre that she needed a cell phone so that she could be on call regularly. Id. at 77. ! Whether Defendant was required to be on call to come to Epstein’s mansion when he wanted her to come. Id. at 79. ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre being at Epstein’s New York mansion when Prince Andrew came to visit. Id. at 80-81. ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre staying at any of Epstein’s six homes. Id. at 81. ! Whether Defendant was aware that there were over 30 individuals who were minors who gave reports to the Palm Beach Police Department who said they were sexually assaulted by Epstein during the years that Defendant was working with him. Id. at 89-91. ! Whether Defendant introduced Ms. Giuffre to Prince Andrew in London. Id. at 108. ! Whether Ms. Giuffre ever stayed at Defendant’s home in London. Id. at 108. ! Whether Defendant remembered taking a trip with Ms. Giuffre to travel over to Europe, including London. Id. at 108. ! Whether Defendant could recall Prince Andrew being present in New York for a party where Johanna Sjoberg was also present. Id. at 112-13. ! Whether a picture depicting Prince Andrew, Ms. Giuffre and Defendant was taken at Defendant’s London town home. Id. at 113-14. ! Whether Defendant ever flew on one of Epstein’s planes with a 17 year old. Id. at 121- 22. ! Whether the notation “GM” on flight logs for passengers on Epstein’s planes represented the Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell). Id. at 122-23. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 28 7 ! Whether Defendant knew that the flight logs produced by Dave Rogers (one of Epstein’s pilots) were accurate. Id. at 128-29. ! Whether Defendant could recall ever being on a flight on one of Epstein’s planes with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 132-33. ! Whether Defendant could recall Epstein and former President Clinton being friendly towards each other. Id. at 135-36. ! Whether Defendant could recall the purpose of a trip to Thailand with Epstein and former President Clinton was. Id. at 140. ! Whether Defendant could recall Ms. Giuffre taking pictures on trips. Id. at 144. ! Whether Defendant could recollect writing down messages on memo pads from various individuals at Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion. Id. at 150-57; 159-60. ! Whether Defendant could recall receiving a message on a memo pad concerning ! Whether Defendant could explain why a minor would be calling Epstein to say they had a female for him. Id. at 164. ! Whether Defendant could recall a sixteen-year-old Russian girl who came to Epstein’s mansion? Id. at 167. ! Whether Defendant believed that Epstein sexually abused minors. Id. at 171-80. ! Whether Defendant was present at Epstein’s Florida mansion when police executed a search warrant. Id. at 186. ! Whether Defendant took a picture at one of Epstein’s properties of a person in either a naked or semi-naked state. Id. at 193. ! Whether Defendant could recall what Epstein told her about the criminal investigation of him. Id. at 194-95. ! Whether Epstein told Defendant that he never had sex with Ms. Giuffre. Id. at 197. ! Whether it was an “obvious lie” that Epstein engaged in sexual conduct with Ms. Giuffre while she was under the age of 18. Id. at 202-06. ! Whether Defendant knew whether Epstein had sex with a minor. Id. at 239. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 28 8 ! Whether it was a lie for Ms. Giuffre to say that Defendant approached females to bring them to Epstein. Id. at 244-46. ! Whether Defendant knew Epstein had a sexual preference for minors. Id. at 251-53. ! Whether Defendant knew that asked girls to come over to see Epstein for purposes of sexual massage. ! Whether Defendant could recall seeing and Epstein together. . ! Whether Defendant was aware of any interstate or international transportation of women, aged 18 to 28, for purposes of having sex with Epstein where they would receive compensation. Id. at 278-79. ! Whether Defendant could recall anything about a puppet or caricature of Prince Andrew in Epstein’s home when Prince Andrew was there, including whether Ms. Giuffre was sitting on Prince Andrew’s lap with the puppet or caricature. Id. at 289-93. ! Whether Defendant could remember entering any telephone numbers into a contact book maintained by Epstein. Id. at 320-22. ! Whether a document with Epstein’s contacts (including “massage” contacts) was located on Defendant’s computer. Id. at 331-34. ! Whether, if Alfredo Rodriguez said that Defendant had knowledge that underage girls were coming over to Epstein’s Florida mansion for purposes of sex, that would be a true statement. Id. at 329-30. ! Whether Defendant could recall any representative of hers informing the press that Ms. Giuffre committed grand theft. Id. at 344-45. ! Whether Defendant knew what her press agent, Ross Gow, was referring to when he talked in an email about “helpful leakage.” Id. at 349-50, 406. ! Whether Defendant could recall interacting with anyone, other than Ms. Giuffre, under the age of 18 on any of Epstein’s properties. Id. at 384. ! Whether Defendant had discussed with Prince Andrew any of the details of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations against him. Id. at 400. Because Defendant refused to answer those questions, Ms. Giuffre needs to depose other witnesses who have the requisite knowledge to testify concerning those issues. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 28 9 2. Johanna Sjorberg (3 ½ hours). Ms. Sjorberg’s deposition was taken on May 18, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale. She testified as follows: ! Johanna confirmed that Maxwell recruited her to work as an assistant but she was almost immediately converted into a massage therapist and worked for Maxwell and Epstein from 2001 – 2006. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, (May 18, 2016 Deposition Tr. at p. 8-9) ! Johanna confirms that she knew Virginia was underage when she met her on the trip to NY with Jeffrey in 2001 because Virginia couldn’t get into the casino and then later Johanna asked her and Virginia said she was 17. (p. 18). Johanna testified that Virginia looked young. (p. 18-19). Johanna added: “At the time I had the impression that she did not have a family or she had walked away from her family. And it seemed to me, you know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as a child, but they would take care of her.” (p. 88) ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey had to have three (3) massages a day from different girls. (p. 30) ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey told her that he had three (3) massages a day because “he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was biological, like eating.” (p. 32) ! Johanna testified that Maxwell “let me know that she was – she would not be able to please him as much as he needed and that is why there were other girls around.” (p. 33) “She (Maxwell) said she doesn’t have the time or the desire to please him as much as he needs and that’s why there were other girls around.” (p. 150-151) ! Johanna confirmed that she witnessed Virginia when she was seventeen (17) in Jeffrey Epstein’s New York mansion with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. (p. 87) Johanna also testified that Prince Andrew sat with Virginia and Johanna and took a picture with a puppet in his image that had its hand and Prince Andrew’s hand on their respective breasts. (p. 83) ! Johanna testified that Maxwell bought a camera for her and asked her to take naked pictures of herself for Jeffrey. (p. 145) ! Johanna testified that Maxwell would not give her the camera because Johanna “didn’t finish the job” when massaging Jeffrey so Maxwell had to do it and was not happy. (p. 34) “She told me – called me after I had left and said, I have the camera for you but you cannot receive it yet because you came here and didn’t finish your job and I had to finish it for you…She was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off and so she had to do it.” Q When you say ‘get Jeffrey off’ do you mean bring him to orgasm?’ A. Yes.” (p. 34-35) ! Maxwell told Johanna to always act “grateful” to Jeffrey Epstein. (p. 35) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 28 10 ! Maxwell called Johanna and the other girls her “children” when they were on a trip to the USVI. (p. 36) ! David Copperfield was at a dinner at Epstein’s and there was another girl present who looked young and Johanna asked what school she went to and Johanna did not recognize the school name as being a college and she said it was possible it was a high school aged girl. Johanna said Copperfield “questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls” (p. 37-38) ! Johanna testified she heard Jeffrey call someone to try to find girls in Hawaii to send over the Fredrick Fekkai. (p. 38-39) ! Johanna testified Jeffrey told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” (p. 41) ! Johanna testified that she was naked for 25 – 50% of all massages. (p. 42) ! Johanna testified that Jeffrey made her perform sexual acts during massages including sexual toys and she had intercourse with him. (p. 43, 146-147) ! Johanna testified that Nadia Marcinkova and Maxwell were both with her in the USVI in 2005. (p. 44). ! Johanna testified that Maxwell asked her to find other girls to perform massages at the house. (p. 141) She gave a name of a girl from a restaurant to Maxwell and Maxwell paid her $200.00 for the girls’ name. “Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over for Jeffrey” (p. 46) A. Yes….”And I recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over…” (p. 141) ! Johanna testified that if a massage involved sexual acts that Jeffrey paid Johanna more than the normal $200.00. (p. 100-101) ! She testified that Defendant called Emmy Taylor her “slave.” (p. 15). Later she testified that Jeffrey: “He told me one time Emmy was sleeping on the plane and they were getting ready to land and he went and woke her up and she thought that meant he wanted a [sex act], so she started to unzip his pants, and he said, No, no, no you just have to wake up for landing.” (p. 143-144) ! Johanna said Defendant flew her in the helicopter from the main island to the USVI. (p. 55) ! Johanna said she believes what Virginia is saying about being abused by Jeffrey and Maxwell. “Basically that I believed her, even though she never spoke to me specifically about what was going on; that once I learned everything that happened based on reading the police report, I believed her side of the story.” (p. 122-123). “Q. And what experience in the house helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is saying is true? A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about what other girls did for him and Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 28 11 that I was not one of those girls. He was always trying to recruit me almost in a way that I could be one of them and travel with him and live the life of luxury if I only – if I only did this. So after five years of learning what was happening, I can look back knowing – I only knew Virginia a short time. Looking back, I can make assumptions about what was required of her.” (p. 123-124) ! She said she recalls that Defendant went to dinner with Governor Bill Richardson one time when Johanna was visiting the ranch in New Mexico (p. 110). B. Future Depositions Sought by Ms. Giuffre Ms. Giuffre has also scheduled the following depositions. 3. Juan Alessi (3 ½ hours). Mr. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for May 31, 2016, in Florida3 . Mr. Alessi was one of the employees in Epstein’s mansion. Mr. Alessi provided witness statements to police during the criminal investigation in Palm Beach, and was previously deposed in civil cases previously brought against Mr. Epstein. Specifically, Juan Alessi informed the Palm Beach Police Detective as follows: “Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at most.” (emphasis added.) See McCawley Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Palm Beach Police Incident Report at p. 57. On November 21, 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department took a sworn statement from house employee Juan Alessi in which he revealed that girls would come over to give “massages” and he observed Ms. Maxwell going upstairs in the direction of the bedroom quarters. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8, November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement at 10. He also testified that after the massages, he would clean up sex toys that were kept in “Ms. Maxwell’s closet.” Id. at 12-13. He added that he and his wife were concerned with what was going on at the house (Id. at 14) and that he observed girls at the house, including one named “Virginia.” Id. at 21. It is anticipated that he will testify consistently with that previous testimony. 3 As explained above, as of today, Defendant’s counsel sent an email refusing to attend this deposition set for Tuesday, May 31, 2016 (Monday is Memorial Day). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 28 12 4. Maria Alessi (3 ½ hours). Ms. Alessi’s deposition is scheduled for June 1, 2016, in Florida. She was, with her husband, household staff for Epstein in the Palm Beach home he shared with Defendant, and, it is anticipated, will corroborate many of the observations of her husband about minor girls and massages inside of Epstein’s Florida mansion. Mr. Alessi referenced during his prior deposition the things that Ms. Alessi observed with respect to the sexual massages and involvement of minor girls. Mrs. Alessi is also anticipated to testify regarding Ms. Maxwell's close association with Mr. Epstein and knowledge the visitors. 5. Dave Rodgers (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rodgers's deposition is scheduled for June 3, 2016, in Florida. Rodgers was one of the pilots for Epstein’s private jets and will, it is anticipated, authenticate his flight logs showing Defendant and Ms. Giuffre together on the same flights. Defendant refused to admit that her name is reflected in the flight logs despite her initials “GM” appearing over 300 times. Therefore, such authentication is necessary because Defendant testified at her deposition she could not remember even the most basic things about flights in the flight logs. For example, when asked if “GM” represented her initials on the flight log, Defendant responded: “How do you know GM is me,” (See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Maxwell Depo. at 29 at. 122) and “GM can stand for any level, it could be Georgina, George.” (Id. at 123). Ms. Giuffre is also seeking additional flight logs in Mr. Rodgers possession that will further corroborate Defendant’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. 6. Rinaldo Rizzo (3 ½ hours). Mr. Rizzo is scheduled for June 10, 2016 and will be able to testify regarding his observations of Defendant and Epstein with underage girls (girls less than 18 years of age). Mr. Rizzo was originally set for deposition on May 13, 2016 which was noticed on April 11, 2016, and Defendant requested that Ms. Giuffre reschedule that deposition just days before the scheduled date. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 28 13 7. Jean Luc Brunel (3 ½ hours). Mr. Brunel’s deposition is set for June 7, 2016, in New York. He has relevant information because he has known Maxwell and Epstein for many years and was present with Epstein and Defendant on many occasions at Epstein’s homes in New York, Palm Beach and the USVI, and he has personal knowledge of the disputed issues in this case 8. Ross Gow (3 ½ hours). Mr. Gow is Defendant’s press agent who issued the press statement at issue in this case on Defendant’s behalf. He will be able to testify regarding the defamatory statement, its distribution, any other defamatory statements that were distributed, and any information he had regarding the basis for the statement. Ms. Giuffre has requested that Defendant agree to produce Mr. Gow rather than requiring the time and expense of having to serve a subpoena on Mr. Gow, located in London, under the Hague convention, but counsel for Defendant has not agreed to produce Ross Gow for deposition. 9. Dana Burns (3 ½ hours). Ms. Burns’ deposition is set for June 8, 2016, in New York City. 10. Jo Jo Fontanella (3 ½ hours). Jo Jo Fontanella is a critical witness because he has been working as Jeffrey Epstein’s butler in his New York mansion for a number of years Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 28 14 including during the time that Ms. Giuffre was staying the night at the mansion when she was a minor child. Virginia interacted with Mr. Fontanella frequently during the time she was with Mr. Epstein and the Defendant. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify to what he observed at the New York mansion including his observation regarding the age and number of females who visited the house each day. Mr. Fontanella will be able to testify regarding Defendant’s presence at the home at various times and what he observed Defendant doing while she was at the New York mansion. 11. Detective Joe Recarey (3 ½ hours). During Defendant’s deposition, Defendant questioned the veracity of the Palm Beach Police report containing the accounts of the numerous minor children who were also sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant referred to at least one of those children as a prostitute, which is false. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Maxwell Deposition at 173:8-12; 359:11-18. The Palm Beach police report also includes statements about the Defendant. Detective Recarey is expected to testify regarding his investigation, what he observed, the evidence he collected from Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion, the modus operandi of the Epstein organization, and the interviews he conducted with a number of females who were subject to abuse at the Palm Beach mansion. He will also testify regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s, who is in a joint defense with Defendant, and his campaign to attack the credibility of the numerous minor children who reported sex offenses against him. Attacking the credibility of their victims, including Ms. Giuffre, is a part of Epstein and Defendant’s modus operandi. 12. Former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter (3 ½ hours). Chief Reiter is scheduled for deposition on June 20, 2016. He was the Police Chief who was responsible for overseeing the Palm Beach Epstein investigation. He has made public statements about the 40 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 28 15 victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. He has made public statements about the fact that after he started the investigation into the crimes that took place at the Palm Beach mansion, he was followed by strange men and “investigated”. He also has made public statements that he sent to victims regarding the failure of the government to properly handle the matter. Reiter is relevant to many issues, among others, Defendant’s claimed innocence by the fact that she was never formally charged. 13. Emmy Taylor (3 ½ hours). Emmy Taylor was Defendant’s “assistant” during the time Ms. Giuffre was being abused. Ms. Taylor is on flight logs to Europe with Ms. Giuffre and other locations in the United States. Johanna Sjoberg testified that Emmy Taylor was referred to by the Defendant as “my slave” and that Ms. Taylor trained Ms. Sjoberg to give massages while Ms. Sjoberg was naked. Emmy Taylor will be able to testify as to what she observed and experienced during the years she was with Defendant and Epstein. Ms. Giuffre is still attempting to locate Ms. Taylor, but she is believed to reside in London. 14. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 28 16 15. Nadia Marcinkova (3 ½ hours). Ms. Marcinkova’s deposition is set for June 16, 2016, in New York.4 Ms. Marcinkova was specifically identified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of Epstein” in the non￾prosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. She has relevant information because she observed the recruitment of underage girls for sex and, in fact, participated in sex acts with minors. She was also on numerous flights with Defendant (in contradiction to Defendant’s testimony), and she can provide valuable testimony about Maxwell's role in the recruitment of females. 16. Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers) (3 ½ hours). Ms. Kellen’s deposition is set for June 22, 2016, in New York. Ms. Kellen specifically identified by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as a “potential co-conspirator of Epstein” in the non-prosecution agreement it executed with Mr. Epstein as part of his guilty plea. She has relevant information because she was present during the time when Virginia was with Epstein and the Defendant, and she travelled with all of them during this critical time period. It is believed that she worked at the direction of, and directly under, Ms. Maxwell and was taught by Ms. Maxwell how to recruit females for sex with Mr. Epstein. 4 Marcinkova, Kellen and Epstein have not been personally served and are all subject to Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for Alternative Service [D.E. 160]. ■ • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 28 17 17. Jeffrey Epstein (3 ½ hours). Ms. Giuffre’s counsel have been in touch with Epstein’s counsel and is continuing to work to schedule his deposition. Epstein lies at the center of this case, and he can testify that Defendant recruited females for sex with him, including Mrs. Giuffre, under the offer of being a massage therapist, and ultimately paid these females for sex. He can testify that Defendant lured dozens if not hundreds of young females, including many underage females, to his residences for sexual purposes. II. DISCUSSION Ms. Giuffre has attempted to conduct discrete, focused discovery in this case to limit any burdens on the Defendant and on the Court. Nonetheless, this case presents numerous challenges that require that she take more than ten depositions – not the least of which is Defendant’s extraordinary lack of memory about many events that would appear to have indisputably taken place. Ms. Giuffre, however, is not seeking to exceed the allotted hours for depositions under Rule 45 -- only the number of depositions. Ms. Giuffre seeks leave of Court to 7 additional depositions, for a total of seventeen depositions. Under the rules, each party is entitled to take ten depositions which total seven hours each. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(d)(1). Thus, the presumptive time limit for depositions is a total of seventy hours (10 depositions x 7 hours per deposition). For the convenience of opposing counsel, Ms. Giuffre has stipulated that they may have half of the seven hour deposition time for each third party witness. Thus, if the Court grants Ms. Giuffre’s motion, she will end up taking less than seventy hours of deposition testimony. Specifically, she will only take one deposition of seven hours (Defendant’s) and sixteen depositions of three-and-a-half hours – a total of 66 and ½ hours of depositions. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 28 18 In light of the accommodation she had extended to opposing counsel, Ms. Giuffre requested that opposing counsel agree that both sides could schedule additional depositions beyond the presumptive limit of ten. Defendant refused to agree and is also in disagreement about the proposed schedule for depositions, despite the fact that Ms. Giuffre scheduled depositions based on the dates Defendant’s counsel represented were available for depositions in this case. At Defendant's counsel's request Ms. Giuffre scheduled depositions of witnesses who lived in the same geographical location on consecutive days to limit the travel time and expense. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1. Sadly, it appears that Defendant’s counsel may be attempting to delay Ms. Giuffre’s ability to obtain depositions because certain witnesses are avoiding service and others were difficult to locate, and the time period for the close of discovery is swiftly approaching. The Court will recall that the Defendant managed to delay her deposition until April 22, 2016, through unnecessary motion practice. And now that the need to depose other witnesses has been established, Defendant’s counsel are employing other delay tactics. The Court currently has before it, for example, Ms. Giuffre’s motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service. DE 160. As recounted at greater length in that motion, three of the critical witnesses in this case – Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellan, and Nadia Marcinkova – have all thus far managed to evade service of process, despite repeated, diligent, and expensive efforts at personal service. Of course, all three of these witnesses are persons who have worked very closely with Defendant in the past. Epstein is also in a joint defense agreement with Defendant. In other situations, Ms. Giuffre has been forced to delay taking depositions because of Defense Counsel. For example, Ms. Giuffre served a subpoena on Mr. Rizzo and opposing Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 28 19 counsel on April 11, 2016 for a deposition a month later on May 13, 2016. Just days before the deposition, Defendant’s counsel said they didn’t realize the deposition was scheduled and that they could not proceed forward on that date. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, May 5, 2016 E￾mail Correspondence Regarding Scheduled Depositions. This forced Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to have to reset the witness for June 10, 2016. Of course, with each delay, Ms. Giuffre is hamstrung in identifying which further witnesses need to be deposed. Under Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party who wishes to conduct more than ten depositions without stipulation by the opposing party must seek leave of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Once such a motion is made, “[t]he court must grant a request to exceed ten depositions unless the additional depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the requesting party had a prior opportunity in discovery to obtain the information sought, or the burden or expense of additional depositions would outweigh any likely benefit.” In re Weatherford Int'l Sec. Litig., No. 11 CIV. 1646 LAK JCF, 2013 WL 5762923, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610, 628 (2d Cir.2001)). Given the liberal discovery allowed by the rules, the burden on the party seeking additional depositions is not great. Rule 30(a)(2)'s ten-deposition limit is “a useful and appropriate ‘Stop’ sign, not as a ‘Road Closed’ sign. Once any party has taken ten depositions, it makes perfect sense to require that party to demonstrate the need for more. But that showing need not be onerous. If the need exists, discovery should not be prevented.” Scott v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 298 F.R.D. 400, 402-03 (N.D. Iowa 2014). As the Court can readily determine from the summary of anticipated testimony above, none of the anticipated testimony is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Rather, all of the anticipated testimony goes to central and now-disputed issues in the case. The Court should be Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 28 20 aware that, at every turn, Defendant appears ready to brand Ms. Giuffre as a “liar” who cannot be believed. Thus, obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that she is telling the truth is more important in this case than it would be in many others. It is equally important that Ms. Giuffre be able to depose the witnesses who can refute Defendant's testimony. The Court can also readily determine that Ms. Giuffre has not had any prior opportunity to obtain discovery of the witnesses she seeks to depose. The case is only now in the fact discovery phase, and she has had no opportunity to previously depose these third-party witnesses. Finally, there is no substantial burden involved with deposing seven additional witnesses. Any assessment of burden must take into account the scope of the underlying case. Ms. Giuffre is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages that would total millions of dollars. Against that backdrop, a handful of additional depositions cannot be seen as unduly burdensome. Moreover, this is not a situation where Defendant lacks means to pay for counsel to attend the depositions. Defendant’s vast wealth does not appear to be in doubt.5 During the meet-and-confer on this issue, the Defendant’s substantive reason for not stipulating to these additional depositions is that, with regard to three of the witnesses (Epstein, Kellan, and Marcinkova), it appears likely that they will invoke their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer some questions about Defendant’s involvement in in the sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre. But until those witnesses actually take the Fifth, the conclusion that they will actually 5 Defendant has thus far refused produce documents regarding the extent of her assets, arguing that until the punitive damages phase of this proceeding is reached the discovery is not relevant. Nonetheless, public information suggests significant assets – and the possibility that she is transferring assets outside the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Alleged Epstein Madam Sells $16M Manhattan Townhouse, New York Post, Apr. 28, 2016 (available at http://nypost.com/2016/04/28/alleged-epstein￾madam-sells-16m-manhattan-townhouse/). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 28 21 take the Fifth is, at a minimum, premature.6 The witness may, for example, answer some questions and not others. And, in any event, even if they take the Fifth when asked about Defendant’s sexual abuse of minors, those invocations will quite likely be admissible against the Defendant at trial. The Second Circuit has squarely held that a witness’ invocation of Fifth Amendment rights can in proper circumstances be used against a party. The Second Circuit’s seminal decision is LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), which upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive factors: (1) nature of witness' relationship with and loyalty to party; (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation; (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects. Id. at 124-25. Clearly, many of these factors are going to weigh heavily in favor of drawing an adverse inference against Defendant. For example, Jeffrey Epstein is a “pragmatically noncaptioned 6 The Court should be aware that these are also the three witnesses who have been attempted to evade service of process. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 28 22 party in interest” regarding issues of whether he and Defendant together sexually abused Ms. Giuffre. And Defendant is in a joint defense agreement with Epstein. Also, some of the most important events in this case took place in private bedroom where just three people were present – Ms. Giuffre, Defendant, and Epstein. With Defendant denying these events, the fact that Epstein may take the Fifth could provide decisive information to the jury. But the Court need not make any determinations now as to precisely how these factors will play out. Instead, it is enough to note that very important and unique evidence may be secured from the deposition of each of these three individuals and therefore Ms. Giuffre should be permitted to take their deposition. CONCLUSION Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that she be allowed to take a total seventeen depositions in this case. Dated: May 27, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 28 23 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52027 7 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 28 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-10 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 28 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v . Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ______________________________/ NON-REDACTED DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT IN FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), FILED UNDER SEAL I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit In Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), Filed Under Seal. 3. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of the May 17, 2016 Email Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of the May 27, 2016 Email Correspondence from Laura Menninger. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4 and Subpoena to Juan Alessi. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, is a true and correct copy of the May 26, 2016 Correspondence from Sigrid McCawley. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of the May 18, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Johanna Sjoberg. 8. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of the April 22, 2016 Deposition Transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of the Palm Beach Police Report. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of the November 21, 2005 Sworn Statement of Juan Alessi. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of the May 4, 2016 Email Correspondence from Laura Menninger. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley_________ Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4 Dated: May 27, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley________________ Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Tel: (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 27, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Paliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-11 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 179 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS ------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------x May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 179 Page 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY, ESQ. and MEREDITH SCHULTZ, ESQ. 5 6 HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant 7 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 8 BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER, ESQ. 9 10 SINCLAIR LOUIS & ZAVERTNIK, P.A. Attorneys for Deponent 11 40 NW Third Street Suite 200 12 Miami, Florida 33128 BY: MARSHALL DORE LOUIS, ESQ. 13 14 15 ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Kick, Videographer 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 179 Page 3 1 2 I N D E X 3 Examination by Ms. McCawley ................... 5 Examination by Ms. Menninger ................... 50 4 Further Examination by Ms. McCawley ............ 138 Further Examination by Ms. Menninger ........... 147 5 6 7 E X H I B I T S 8 Deposition Exhibit 1 ........................... 7 Deposition Notice 9 Deposition Exhibit 2 ........................... 7 10 Subpoena 11 Deposition Exhibit 3 ........................... 16 Flight log 12 Deposition Exhibit 4 ........................... 49 13 Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report 14 Deposition Exhibit 5 ........................... 117 15 Red Ice Creations web article 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 179 Page 4 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 2 record. This is begins Videotape No. 1 in the 3 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, in the matter of 4 Virginia Giuffre versus Ghislaine Maxwell. 5 Today is May 18th, 2016. The time is 6 9:04 a.m. This deposition is being taken at 7 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, 8 Florida. 9 The videographer is Ryan Kick. The court 10 reporter is Kelli Ann Willis. We both 11 represent Magna Legal Services. 12 Will counsel and all parties present state 13 their appearance and whom they represent. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm Sigrid McCawley, 15 with the law firm of Boise Schiller & Flexner, 16 and I represent Virginia Giuffre. And I have 17 here two colleagues of mine, Meredith Schultz 18 and Sandra Perkins, from my firm as well. 19 MS. MENNINGER: Hi. I'm Laura Menninger 20 from Haddon Morgan & Foreman, and I represent 21 Ghislaine Maxwell. 22 MR. LOUIS: I'm Dore Louis from Sinclair 23 Louis & Zavertnik. I'm here on behalf of the 24 deponent. 25 Thereupon: MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 179 Page 5 1 JOHANNA SJOBERG 2 a witness named in the notice heretofore filed, 3 being of lawful age and having been first duly 4 sworn, testified on her oath as follows: 5 E X A M I N A T I O N 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. Good morning, Johanna. Thank you for 8 coming. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about 9 the deposition process before we get started to make 10 sure you understand what's going to happen here 11 today. 12 You just heard there's a videographer, and 13 he's going to be taking your video during this 14 deposition and generally what's happening in the 15 course of the deposition. 16 And then you have a court reporter here 17 who takes down the words that we say. And it's a 18 little bit tricky because I tend to speak quickly 19 sometimes and speak over people, and she needs to 20 get down all of the words. So I'll try to do my 21 best to go slower and make sure I'm not talking over 22 you. 23 And, similarly, if you've got an answer to 24 a question, make sure that you're verbally 25 responding, not just nodding or making a gesture MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 179 Page 6 1 because she can't get that down. We want to make 2 sure our responses are verbal. I'll try to remind 3 you of that if that happens. 4 Have you ever been deposed before? 5 A. No. 6 Q. No. Okay. 7 So what's going to happen is I'm going to 8 ask questions, and you'll give answers. And like I 9 said, everybody will be recording those. 10 Is there any reason, any medical reason, 11 anything you've taken today that would cause you to 12 not to be able to give truthful testimony today? 13 A. No. 14 Q. No. Okay. 15 All right. So we're going to get started, 16 and if you have any questions during the deposition 17 or you need to stop to take a break, you can just 18 let me know and we'll take that break. 19 So what I -- the only thing I ask is if 20 we're in the midst of a question, you finish the 21 answer before we take a break. 22 A. Sure. 23 Q. But I'll try to make sure that I take 24 regular breaks, as well. 25 You stated your name for the record. Can MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 179 Page 7 1 you tell me your date of birth? 2 3 Q. That makes you how old now? 4 5 Q. Okay. And where are you currently living? 6 7 Q. And I'm going to show you what I'm going 8 to mark as the first two exhibits in the matter. 9 And I'm going to ask the court reporter if I can 10 mark those. 11 (The referred-to document was marked by 12 the court reporter for Identification as 13 Sjoberg Exhibits 1 and 2.) 14 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 15 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what I'm 16 marking as Exhibit 1. It's going to be the 17 re-notice of your videotaped deposition, which is 18 simply a notice I'm going to show you. And then 19 Exhibit 2 is the subpoena that we served on you. 20 So you're here today pursuant to our 21 Notice of Deposition and the subpoena that we served 22 on you. 23 Are you familiar with the subpoena? Have 24 you seen that document before? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 179 Page 8 1 Q. Okay. Great. 2 All right. Do you know a female by the 3 name of Ghislaine Maxwell? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell? 6 A. 2001. March probably. End of 7 February/beginning of March. 8 Q. And how did you meet her? 9 A. She approached me while I was on campus at 10 Palm Beach Atlantic College. 11 Q. And what happened when she approached you? 12 A. She asked me if I could tell her how to 13 find someone that would come and work at her house. 14 She wanted to know if there was, like, a bulletin 15 board or something that she could post, that she was 16 looking for someone to hire. 17 Q. And what did you discuss with her? 18 A. I told her where she could go to -- you 19 know, to put up a listing. And then she asked me if 20 I knew anyone that would be interested in working 21 for her. 22 Q. Did she describe what that work was going 23 to be? 24 A. She explained that she lived in Palm Beach 25 and didn't want butlers because they're too stuffy. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 179 Page 9 1 And so she just liked to hire girls to work at the 2 house, answer phones, get drinks, do the job a 3 butler would do. 4 Q. And did she tell you what she would pay 5 for that kind of a job? 6 A. At that moment, no, but later in the day, 7 yes. 8 Q. And what did she say? 9 A. Twenty dollars an hour. 10 Q. Was there anybody else with Ms. Maxwell 11 when you met her? 12 A. There was another woman with her. I don't 13 recall her or what she looks like or how old she 14 was. 15 Q. And what happened next? 16 A. And then she asked me if I would be 17 interested in working for her. And she told me that 18 she was -- I could trust her and that I could jump 19 in her car and go check out the house at that moment 20 if I wanted. 21 And so I said, Sure, let's do it, and went 22 to her home with her. 23 Q. And where was that home? 24 A. In Palm Beach. 25 Q. And did she describe that home as being MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 179 Page 10 1 her home? 2 A. She described it as being her home and 3 alluded to the fact that it was her and Jeffrey's 4 home and that she had homes all over the world. 5 Yes. 6 Q. And what happened when you arrived at the 7 home? 8 A. I believe she just showed me around. 9 Q. Do you recall meeting anybody at the home? 10 A. I don't recall if I met Jeffrey at that 11 time or the next time that I was there. 12 Q. How did you meet Jeffrey? Did Maxwell 13 introduce you to Jeffrey? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What do you recall of your first meeting 16 with Jeffrey? 17 A. I remember him being in a bathrobe. I 18 recall talking to him about how I was a major in 19 psychology. And he had studied psychology, and so 20 he spoke with me about different topics. 21 I remember thinking this guy is very 22 smart. That was my first impression. 23 Q. And when you refer to Jeffrey, are you 24 referring to Jeffrey Epstein? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 179 Page 11 1 Q. How did the meeting -- you said Maxwell 2 took you to the home. Do you remember how that 3 meeting ended? 4 A. Well, she dropped me back off at campus. 5 Q. And did you -- 6 A. She got my number and I took her number. 7 And then she called me the next weekend to work. 8 Q. So at that point you started working for 9 Ms. Maxwell? 10 A. At that time, yes. 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 12 Sorry. 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Did you then start working for Ms. Maxwell 15 after that first meeting? 16 A. She called me and I went over to the home 17 the next Sunday to work. 18 Q. And what work -- can you describe for me 19 the first day at work, what work you performed? 20 A. Sure. I remember answering the phones and 21 taking messages. And at one point, she asked me to 22 go pick up printer ink, and I took her car to Office 23 Depot to get ink. 24 She asked me to go buy some magazines, so 25 I went to Palm Beach Daily News and bought a few MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 179 Page 12 1 magazines. 2 She and I went -- she wanted to take me 3 shopping to Worth Avenue, but it was a Sunday and 4 Nieman Marcus was closed, so we went back to, like, 5 a little book store. And I remember she bought, I 6 think, five pairs of reading glasses because she 7 thought Jeffrey would like them. He had them all 8 over the house. On every table there was reading 9 glasses. 10 And that's about it. It was a pretty 11 simple day. 12 Q. Were you paid that day for that work? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And how much were you paid? Do you 15 remember? 16 A. I don't remember how many hours I was 17 there -- I was there. She paid me cash. 18 Q. So Maxwell paid you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And then was she the one who trained you 21 with what -- with respect to what you were supposed 22 to do during the day, directed you to, like you 23 said, go to -- 24 A. I believe she was the one that was kind of 25 showing me around. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 179 Page 13 1 Q. And how long did you work in that position 2 answering phones and doing -- 3 A. Just that one day. 4 Q. Just that one day. 5 And did your duties change? 6 A. Well, the next time she called me, she 7 asked me if I wanted to come over and make $100 an 8 hour rubbing feet. 9 Q. And what did you think of that offer? 10 A. I thought it was fantastic. 11 Q. And did you come over to the house for 12 that purpose? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And when you came over to the house, was 15 Maxwell present? 16 A. I don't recall. 17 Q. And what happened that second time you 18 came to the house? 19 A. At that point, I met Emmy Taylor, and she 20 took me up to Jeffrey's bathroom and he was present. 21 And her and I both massaged Jeffrey. She was 22 showing me how to massage. 23 And then she -- he took -- he got off the 24 table, she got on the table. She took off her 25 clothes, got on the table, and then he was showing MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 179 Page 14 1 me moves that he liked. And then I took my clothes 2 off. They asked me to get on the table so I could 3 feel it. Then they both massaged me. 4 Q. So it was more than a foot massage at that 5 point? 6 A. Yeah, it was mostly, like, legs and back. 7 Q. Was everybody in the room without clothes 8 on? 9 A. When they were on the massage table, yes. 10 Q. Did they -- when they got off the massage 11 table to perform the massage, did they dress or 12 did -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. They dressed. 15 And do you recall who paid you for that 16 first day that you did the massages? 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q. Do you recall whether Maxwell was at the 19 house during that first day when you were doing the 20 massage with Emmy and Jeffrey? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, asked and 22 answered. 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 24 Q. You can answer. 25 A. I don't recall. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 179 Page 15 1 Q. Who did Emmy work for? 2 A. Ghislaine. 3 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to Emmy by any 4 particular term? 5 A. She called her her slave. 6 Q. You said your job duties changed. Did you 7 start to travel as part of your job with Jeffrey and 8 Ghislaine? 9 A. Yes. The next time they called me, they 10 asked me to go to New York. 11 Q. And did you -- do you recall when that was 12 approximately? 13 A. That was Easter of 2001. 14 Q. And do you recall who was on the plane 15 with you for that trip? 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Actually, I'm going to stop 18 really quickly and I'm going to ask for the 19 next exhibit, please. 20 MS. MENNINGER: This is 3? 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes. I'm going to mark 22 this as Exhibit 3 for purposes of the 23 deposition. 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 179 Page 16 1 (The referred-to document was marked by 2 the court reporter for Identification as 3 Sjoberg Exhibit 3.) 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 5 Q. Johanna, I'm going to direct you -- I 6 flagged some pages, but for the record, I'm going to 7 say what pages they are before I hand you the 8 exhibit. 9 A. Sure. 10 Q. These are Giuffre 000748 and 000758, are 11 the two pages right now I may refer you to. The 12 document itself is 000721 through 789. 13 And these are flight logs from pilot David 14 Rogers that have been produced in this case. 15 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 16 asking the witness any questions about this 17 document. 18 THE WITNESS: Can I touch it? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, you may. 20 MS. MENNINGER: I just have to say things 21 every now and then. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 24 Q. So you mentioned that you traveled to New 25 York. If you turn to page -- flagged page which MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 179 Page 17 1 should be 000748, at the top of that document you're 2 going to see a date of April 2001. 3 I'm just going to ask you to go down to 4 the -- if you look at the line on the left to where 5 it says 9 for the date, and look over where it has 6 the names. 7 Do you see -- can you identify your name 8 on that list? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And can you tell me -- I know there are 11 initials there -- who else to the extent you 12 remember was on the plane with you? 13 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 14 leading, form of question. 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 16 Q. Johanna, do you recall who was on the 17 plane with you that day? 18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 19 form, leading. 20 The witness is reading the document. 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 22 Q. You can answer. 23 A. Okay. JE, Jeffrey Epstein; ET, Emmy 24 Taylor; VR, Virginia Roberts; BK, I do not recall; 25 and myself. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 179 Page 18 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. The witness is 2 reading the document. 3 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 4 Q. And do you recall where you flew when you 5 went to -- when you traveled that first time with 6 Jeffrey Epstein? 7 A. We left from Palm Beach and landed in 8 Atlantic City for a few hours because there was a 9 storm in New York, and then got back on the plane a 10 few hours later and landed in Teterboro. 11 Q. And you said that you recall landing in 12 Atlantic City. Did you go into Atlantic City? 13 A. Yes, went to one of Trump's casinos. 14 Q. Did you actually go into the casino 15 itself? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you recall Virginia -- at the time 18 Virginia Roberts being present with you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you recall if she went into the casino? 21 A. She was underage. I did not know anything 22 about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I 23 just knew she could not get in because of an ID 24 issue. So she and I did not gamble. 25 Q. In your opinion, did Virginia look young, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 179 Page 19 1 in your view? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you ever -- did you at that time 4 wonder why she was traveling with Jeffrey? 5 A. At that time, I did not. 6 Q. Did you later wonder that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what was your impression? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague, 10 speculative. 11 THE WITNESS: I -- we're jumping ahead; is 12 that okay? 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Yes, that's okay. 15 A. A few days later, I remember asking her 16 questions to try to figure out her role, why she was 17 there, and she gave me vague answers and was never 18 specific. 19 And so I thought perhaps she just was an 20 assistant, someone that did massages well. I wanted 21 to believe that she was innocent. 22 Q. Did you ever refer to her as being 23 orphan-like? 24 A. I did. 25 Q. And how did that come about? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 179 Page 20 1 A. No, I only -- to you, I said that to you. 2 I just saw her as perhaps someone who may not have 3 had a strong family, and they took her under their 4 wing. 5 Q. Now, you mentioned remembering going to 6 Atlantic City. 7 Did you go -- where did you go after 8 Atlantic City? 9 A. Once we landed in New York, Emmy and I 10 went in a car and drove around the city for a half 11 hour or so, just to see some of the city. 12 Q. And then where did you go after doing the 13 sightseeing? 14 A. We went to the townhouse on East 71st. 15 Q. And can you describe that location for me? 16 A. Sure. Between Madison and Park. I think 17 the address might have been 9 East 71st Street. 18 Q. And who owned that home? 19 A. As far as I knew, Epstein. 20 Q. Can you describe for me physically what -- 21 A. Palatial. When you walk up, it looks like 22 a normal door to a townhouse, and when you walk 23 in -- I thought there were four floors. I heard 24 there were seven floors. I didn't see them all. 25 Q. And do you recall who, if anybody, was at MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 179 Page 21 1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived? 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the 4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the 5 living room. 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you 7 came up to the living room? 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that 11 time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what happened next? 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the 18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's 19 when I knew who he was. 20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like? 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 179 Page 22 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I 2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand 3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my 4 breast, and they took a photo. 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? 6 A. I don't recall. 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was 8 taken? 9 A. I did not. 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the -- 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What happened next? 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who 18 remained in that room? 19 A. I don't. 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that 21 room? 22 A. I don't. 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York 25 house? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 179 Page 23 1 A. I performed at least one massage that I 2 recall. 3 Q. And who instructed you to give that 4 massage? 5 A. Jeffrey. 6 Q. And can you describe for me what happened 7 during that massage? 8 A. Near the end, he asked me to rub his 9 nipples while he masturbated. 10 Q. And did that take place? 11 A. It did not. 12 Q. And why not? 13 A. I was not comfortable with it. And so I 14 left the room. 15 Q. Did you have any -- did you say anything 16 to him before leaving the room? 17 A. I believe I said, "I'm done." 18 Q. Do you recall what his reaction was to 19 that? 20 A. I do not. At the time, at that moment, I 21 do not. 22 Q. Did you recall later what -- 23 A. Well, we had a conversation a little 24 later, talking about his expectations, and that was 25 the conversation where he said that the next trip MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 179 Page 24 1 they were going on was to the island in the Virgin 2 Islands, and I would be invited; however, there 3 would be, quote, sex stuff happening. 4 Q. Can you describe for me -- can you 5 describe for me what that -- in New York, where you 6 massaged and what that looked like? 7 A. He had one room that was the massage room. 8 It was about the size of a spa room in a spa. It 9 had high ceilings. It had dark tapestry on the 10 walls. It was a very dark room. There was a very 11 large picture of a naked woman whom I don't recall. 12 That's all I remember. 13 Q. In the New York home, did you observe 14 photos around the house? 15 A. I don't recall. 16 Q. In the Palm Beach home that we were 17 talking about earlier, did you recall seeing photos 18 in that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And did you recall seeing photos of naked 21 females in that home? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Approximately -- can you tell me where you 24 would see those in the home? 25 A. I definitely saw them in his bathroom. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 179 Page 25 1 And I can't recall if they were in the main living 2 areas. 3 Q. Did you see them in the stairwell up to 4 the second story of the house? 5 A. I can't recall. 6 Q. Do you know who -- who the people were in 7 those photos? Were you familiar with any of them? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Were you in any of those photos? 10 A. At one point, yes. 11 Q. And were you naked in that photo? 12 A. Topless. 13 Q. Do you recall seeing any naked photos of 14 Virginia Roberts? 15 A. I do not. 16 Q. Where did you go next, after the New York 17 visit? 18 A. I went to the Virgin Islands. 19 Q. And who told you that you would be going 20 to the Virgin Islands? 21 A. He asked me if I wanted to go, and I said 22 I would still like to go. 23 Q. And do you recall who you -- who went with 24 you to the Virgin Islands? 25 A. I believe -- well, I know Virginia was MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 179 Page 26 1 with me. Ghislaine was there. Jeffrey. And there 2 were two other women that I don't recall their 3 names. 4 Q. Did you travel on Jeffrey's plane to get 5 to the Virgin Islands? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I want to show you again the flight log 8 that you have there in front of you. If you can 9 flip to -- 10 MS. MENNINGER: I'm going to object to the 11 foundation again. 12 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 13 Q. It's that same page that you were on. The 14 date is the 11th. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you see the TEB to TIST there? 17 A. Yes. 18 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. The 19 questioning is testifying now. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Can you let me finish my 21 question, please? 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 23 Q. Can you tell me who the initials are there 24 that you see that were on the plane? 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 179 Page 27 1 leading. 2 THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Epstein; Ghislaine 3 Maxwell; AP and PK are the two women I do not 4 recall; Virginia Roberts; and myself. 5 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 6 Q. Do you recall how you flew back from the 7 location in the US Virgin Islands? 8 A. They put me on a commercial flight. I 9 wanted to be home in time for Easter. 10 Q. When you say "they," do you recall who 11 made those arrangements for you? 12 A. It could have been Ghislaine. 13 Q. Did you -- do you recall performing 14 massages while you were in the US Virgin Islands? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Who was involved in -- was there more than 17 one? 18 A. Yes. I massaged Ghislaine at one point. 19 And I massaged Jeffrey, Virginia and I, both, on the 20 beach. 21 Q. Were you dressed during the massage that 22 was on the beach? 23 A. Yes. Bikinis probably, most likely. 24 Q. Do you recall what Virginia was wearing? 25 A. I believe she was wearing a bathing suit, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 179 Page 28 1 as well. 2 Q. Were you paid for the massage on the beach 3 with Virginia? 4 A. At the end of -- before I left and flew 5 home, Ghislaine gave me $1,000. 6 Q. You mentioned that you massaged -- you 7 recall massaging Ghislaine on the trip to the USVI. 8 Do you recall when that took place? 9 A. I don't even recall what days we were 10 there, so... 11 Q. Do you recall where it took place? 12 A. I believe it was -- well, either in my 13 guest cottage or one of them. There were three 14 guest houses set up that were all similar and that I 15 was staying in. Virginia and I stayed in one 16 together. And it was either in there or in another 17 one that was identical. 18 Q. And was that massage performed with 19 Virginia as well or by you alone? 20 A. I don't recall. 21 Q. Were there other females in the USVI on 22 that trip with you besides Virginia? 23 A. Two others. 24 Q. And do you recall who they were? 25 A. I do not. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 179 Page 29 1 Q. Did you ever see Ghislaine Maxwell during 2 that trip laying out by the pool? 3 A. There was one time where we were all by 4 the pool, yes. 5 Q. Was Ghislaine Maxwell ever nude or topless 6 by the pool? 7 A. I don't recall. She was nude when she 8 went swimming in the ocean. 9 Q. At that moment in the USVI home, did you 10 observe any photos there of nude females? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Besides Virginia, who you mentioned, you 13 observed to be young, did you observe any other 14 females that in your view appeared to be essentially 15 under the age of 18? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you observe any females who you 18 thought looked young, younger than you? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you remember an individual by the name 21 of that you met during your time with Jeffrey 22 Epstein? 23 A. In Palm Beach? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 179 Page 30 1 Q. Did you observe her to be young when you 2 met her? 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to 4 time. 5 THE WITNESS: All of the women were 6 generally young. I did not know the ages of 7 really anyone, so... 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 9 Q. How many massages did Jeffrey receive on 10 average in a given day? 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: Three a day. 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Let me back up for a moment. 15 How long did you work for Jeffrey and 16 Ghislaine? 17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and 18 foundation. 19 THE WITNESS: I believe it was five years, 20 2001 to 2006. 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 22 Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive 23 per day on average? 24 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 25 THE WITNESS: Three. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 179 Page 31 1 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 2 Q. Were the massages performed by the same 3 girl or different females? 4 A. Different. 5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. What did the females who performed the 8 massages look like? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 10 THE WITNESS: They all looked different. 11 Some of them were ethnic, some were blond, some 12 were short, some were tall. Everyone was thin. 13 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Were the girls who performed the massages 15 young or old? 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anyone being 18 old. 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 20 Q. Do you recall anybody being over the age 21 of, say, 25? 22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, form. 23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe there was 24 probably a few women that were older than 25. 25 MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry. I get a chance MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 179 Page 32 1 to object and then you can still answer. No 2 one is going to stop you from answering. I 3 just need to get the objection on the record, 4 in the same way she needs to be able to talk 5 before you. My apologies. I'm not trying to 6 cut you off, but I am supposed to get it in 7 before you answer. 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received 10 so many massages from so many different girls? 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. 12 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 13 Q. You can answer. 14 A. He explained to me that, in his opinion, 15 he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was 16 biological, like eating. 17 Q. And what was your reaction to that 18 statement? 19 A. I thought it was a little crazy. 20 Q. And what did -- do you recall what -- when 21 you observed the other females giving massages, do 22 you recall what they would dress like? Did they 23 wear scrubs or did they typically wear normal 24 clothes? 25 A. Normal clothes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 179 Page 33 1 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 2 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 3 Q. Do you believe that from your 4 observations, Maxwell and Epstein were boyfriend and 5 girlfriend? 6 A. Initially, yes. 7 Q. Did Maxwell ever share with you whether it 8 bothered her that Jeffrey had so many girls around? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, 10 hearsay. 11 THE WITNESS: No. Actually, the opposite. 12 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 13 Q. What did she say? 14 A. She let me know that she was -- she would 15 not be able to please him as much as he needed and 16 that is why there were other girls around. 17 Q. Did there ever come a time -- did you ever 18 take a photography class in school? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And did there ever come a time when 21 Maxwell offered to buy you a camera? 22 A. Yes. 23 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 24 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 25 Q. Did Maxwell ever offer to buy you a MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 179 Page 34 1 camera? 2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do 6 in order to get the camera? 7 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 8 THE WITNESS: I did not know that there 9 were expectations of me to get the camera until 10 after. She had purchased the camera for me, 11 and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage. 12 I did not know that she was in possession of 13 the camera until later. 14 She told me -- called me after I had left 15 and said, I have the camera for you, but you 16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and 17 didn't finish your job and I had to finish it 18 for you. 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 20 Q. And did you -- what did you understand her 21 to mean? 22 A. She was implying that I did not get 23 Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. 24 Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you 25 mean bring him to orgasm? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 179 Page 35 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what 3 types of girls Jeffrey liked? 4 A. Model types. 5 Q. Did Ghislaine ever talk to you about how 6 you should act around Jeffrey? 7 A. She just had a conversation with me that I 8 should always act grateful. 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you that he took a 10 girl's virginity? 11 A. He did not tell me. He told a friend of 12 mine. 13 Q. And what do you recall about that? 14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay, 15 foundation. 16 THE WITNESS: He wanted to have a friend 17 of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer 18 instructor. She was a physical trainer. 19 And so I brought her over to the house, 20 and he told my friend Rachel that -- he said, 21 You see that girl over there laying by the 22 pool? She was 19. And he said, I just took 23 her virginity. And my friend Rachel was 24 mortified. 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 179 Page 36 1 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 2 Q. Based on what you knew, did Maxwell know 3 that the type of massages Jeffrey was getting 4 typically involved sexual acts? 5 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 6 leading. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 9 Q. What was Maxwell's main job with respect 10 to Jeffrey? 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: Well, beyond companionship, 13 her job, as it related to me, was to find other 14 girls that would perform massages for him and 15 herself. 16 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 17 Q. Did Maxwell ever refer to the girls in a 18 particular way? 19 A. At one point when we were in the islands, 20 we were all watching a movie and she called us her 21 children. 22 Q. Did anybody respond to that? 23 A. I don't recall. 24 Q. Did she ever refer to herself as a mother? 25 A. Yes, like a mother hen. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 179 Page 37 1 Q. Do you recall who was present at the time 2 that she made that comment about children? 3 A. This was the second trip that I took to 4 the Virgin Islands, so, no. I don't want to speak, 5 you know, incorrectly. I can't remember. I can't 6 really remember. 7 Q. Have you ever met David Copperfield? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And do you recall when you initially met 10 him? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Can you tell me what that was? 13 A. Sure. Someone called me from the house 14 and said that he would be there, and if I wanted to 15 come have dinner, then I could meet him. 16 So when I arrived at the house, he wasn't 17 there yet, but I waited with, I believe, Sarah 18 Kellen, and there was another girl there which I had 19 never met and never seen. She seemed young to me. 20 And I asked her what school she went to, 21 kind of prodding to see if she went to one of the 22 area colleges, and I did not recognize the name of 23 the school. 24 And so I thought she could be younger than 25 college age, but I had to assume for my own sanity MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 179 Page 38 1 that she was a daughter of one of his friends. 2 Q. But it was possible she was the school -- 3 is it possible that the school she referred to was a 4 high school? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And what happened at that dinner, if 7 anything? 8 A. He did some magic tricks. 9 Q. Did you observe David Copperfield to be a 10 friend of Jeffrey Epstein's? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did Copperfield ever discuss Jeffrey's 13 involvement with young girls with you? 14 A. He questioned me if I was aware that girls 15 were getting paid to find other girls. 16 Q. Did he tell you any of the specifics of 17 that? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did he say whether they were teenagers or 20 anything along those lines? 21 A. He did not. 22 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, calls 23 for hearsay. 24 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 25 Q. Did you ever hear or observe Jeffrey MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 179 Page 39 1 talking on the phone about Frederic Fekkai? 2 A. Yes. 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading. 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 5 Q. What did you hear? 6 A. I heard him call someone, and say, Fekkai 7 is in Hawaii. Can we find some girls for him? 8 Q. And what was your reaction to that? 9 A. Well, I was massaging and I didn't have a 10 reaction. I tried to remain reactionless the whole 11 five years. 12 Q. Did Jeffrey ever take you shopping? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Can you describe for me what happened? 15 A. Sure. He took me to Victoria's Secret. I 16 believe he picked out everything and went into the 17 room with me, the fitting room, which was very odd. 18 Q. Did he make any comments about being in 19 the fitting room with you? 20 A. He joked that one time he was in there 21 with another girl, and she said something like 22 "Dad." But that's all I recall. 23 Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you -- let me 24 back up a moment. 25 Have you ever been propositioned by anyone MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 179 Page 40 1 to have a baby for someone? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And who propositioned you? 4 A. Jeffrey asked me. 5 Q. Did he ask you more than once? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And what did he say? 8 A. Basically just said, I want you to be the 9 mother of my baby. 10 Q. And do you recall your response to that? 11 A. Um, I don't believe that I said flat-out 12 no. I didn't agree to it. I would just say, Oh, 13 yeah, really? Okay. 14 Q. Did you ever bring other girls over as 15 Maxwell had requested? 16 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, 17 hearsay, form. 18 THE WITNESS: One time. 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 20 Q. Let me back up a minute, just to make it a 21 clean question. 22 Did you ever bring friends over to massage 23 Jeffrey? 24 A. No. 25 Q. And why did you not bring friends over to MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 179 Page 41 1 massage Jeffrey? 2 A. I was living in secret about what I was 3 doing during the massages, and I did not want my 4 friends to be -- to know what I was doing. So I did 5 not want anyone else coming into that. 6 Q. Was Bill Clinton a friend of Jeffrey 7 Epstein? 8 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. 9 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 10 Q. Let me back up. 11 Do you know if Bill Clinton was a friend 12 of Jeffrey Epstein? 13 A. I knew he had dealings with Bill Clinton. 14 I did not know they were friends until I read the 15 Vanity Fair article about them going to Africa 16 together. 17 Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill 18 Clinton? 19 A. He said one time that Clinton likes them 20 young, referring to girls. 21 Q. Did you ever -- do you recall ever taking 22 a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's home in New Mexico? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And do you recall who you went on that 25 trip with? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 179 Page 42 1 A. Sarah Kellen was there. Ghislaine was 2 there. That's all I recall. 3 Q. Do you recall why you went on the trip to 4 New Mexico? 5 A. To work. 6 Q. Did you perform massages on that trip? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you -- do you recall whether you 9 performed massages with Sarah Kellen on that trip? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you recall in the New Mexico home ever 12 observing nude photos of females there? 13 A. I don't recall. 14 Q. When you would provide massages, would you 15 provide those massages naked? 16 A. On occasion. 17 Q. On average, would you be naked, if it was 18 100 percent of the time, more than 50 percent of the 19 time? 20 A. Can you repeat it? 21 Q. Sure. When you're performing the 22 massages, can you tell me -- you said on occasion. 23 Over the five years that you worked for him, how 24 often did you perform massages naked? 25 A. Somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of the MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 179 Page 43 1 time. 2 Q. Did Epstein try to make the massages 3 sexual? 4 A. On occasion. 5 Q. Would Epstein have you rub his nipples? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Would he masturbate during the massages? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did he use sex toys or vibrators on you? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Would he leave the sex toys or vibrators 12 out after the massage or would he clean up after 13 himself? 14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague, form. 15 THE WITNESS: He did not ever clean up. 16 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 17 Q. Do you believe that your experience during 18 the years you were with Jeffrey and Maxwell damaged 19 you? 20 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 21 THE WITNESS: It affected me. "Damaged" 22 is a strong word. 23 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 24 Q. And in what way did it affect you? 25 A. It affected future relationships with men, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 179 Page 44 1 trust issues, expectation issues. 2 Q. Did you observe Nadia Marcinkova and 3 Ghislaine at the house at the same time? 4 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. On the USVI trip, the second trip that you 8 took, do you recall Nadia Marcinkova being present? 9 A. I believe she was present at that trip. 10 Q. Do you recall Maxwell being present on 11 that trip? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of 14 ? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And who is ? 17 A. She was one of the girls that was around. 18 Q. Was around both Jeffrey Epstein 19 and Ghislaine Maxwell? 20 A. I don't recall. 21 Q. Do you recall where you first met 22 23 A. In Palm Beach. 24 Q. At Jeffrey Epstein's home? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 179 Page 45 1 Q. And what -- do you recall any observations 2 about when you met her? 3 A. To speak with, she was a little rough 4 around the edges, and I could see the progression of 5 her being groomed a little. They got her braces. 6 She had terrible posture. And with a lot of 7 massages, she learned to stand up straight. So I 8 just saw her become a much more confident person. 9 Q. Do you recall how old she was when you 10 first met her? 11 A. I assumed she was 18, but I do not know 12 her age. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: We're going to take a break 14 really quickly and then we will be back. So we 15 are going to go off the record. 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9:48. 17 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after 18 which the following proceedings were held:) 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 9:58. 20 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 21 Q. I'm just going to resume. I have a few 22 more questions for you. 23 You mentioned visiting the US Virgin 24 Islands. 25 Do you recall doing any activities with MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 179 Page 46 1 Maxwell when you were on the visit to the USVI? 2 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to 3 time. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. 5 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 6 Q. Do you recall ever going hiking with her? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did Maxwell ever ask you to try to bring 9 other girls over for Jeffrey? 10 A. At that time? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. No. 13 Q. Any other time? 14 A. Well, she had asked me if I knew anyone 15 that could perform massages that would come to the 16 house. 17 Q. And what was your understanding of that 18 request? 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: Well -- 21 MS. MENNINGER: Form. 22 THE WITNESS: -- I just wondered why they 23 wouldn't just call me. 24 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 25 Q. And did you bring anybody else over to MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 179 Page 47 1 perform massages? 2 A. I did not. 3 Q. When you were either in the USVI or in 4 Palm Beach, did you ever observe any females either 5 topless or naked out by the pool? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What did you observe? 8 A. Mostly skinny-dipping. 9 Q. Do you know who the individuals were that 10 you observed? 11 A. Sarah Kellen and Ghislaine. 12 Q. Anybody else? 13 A. Yes, but I don't recall who. 14 Q. Did that happen on more than one occasion? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. How often do you remember making those 17 observations? 18 A. Three times. 19 Q. Do you recall giving a statement to the 20 police regarding Jeffrey Epstein? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you recall when you gave that 23 statement? 24 A. I don't recall the date. 25 Q. Do you recall the year? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 179 Page 48 1 A. I want to say it was early 2006 or late 2 2005. 3 Q. Do you recall who you met with? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you recall what you told the police? 6 A. It was similar to this. They were asking 7 me a lot of questions that I answered. They knew a 8 lot. They knew what the bathroom looked like. They 9 knew that the couch had a hot pink throw on it with 10 green tassels. 11 I assumed that there had been videos and 12 they had seen me. They had seen the videos. That's 13 what I had assumed. I didn't know that maybe people 14 had already come forward and given them statements. 15 Q. Did they talk to you at all about the 16 videos? 17 A. They said, Were you aware that there were 18 video cameras in the house? 19 I said, No, but it would not surprise me. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: And I'm going to mark as 21 Exhibit 4 -- do you have an extra -- sorry. 22 Did you get one? Okay. Giuffre 0002 through 23 89. 24 And I'm going to direct you to page 00076, 25 and I'm going to hand it to you. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of 179 Page 49 1 (The referred-to document was marked by 2 the court reporter for Identification as 3 Sjoberg Exhibit 4.) 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 5 Q. I'm just going to ask that you take a look 6 at that. As you can see, under the narrative line 7 there, there is a name. It says, "Reported by 8 Recarey, Joseph." Is that a name you recall meeting 9 with, a Detective Recarey? 10 A. Yes. I mean, I don't recall his name, 11 only except that he had been following me around, 12 and he left me cards, like, on my car and in my 13 door. I tried to avoid him for a long time. 14 Q. And can you just look at the text 15 underneath there? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Take a moment to look at that. 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to 20 what you told the police during the investigation? 21 A. There are errors in here. I was not 23 22 when I met him. I was 21. 23 Q. Anything else that doesn't look correct? 24 A. The same error: That I had met him three 25 years ago, and it obviously had been closer to five. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of 179 Page 50 1 There is also the error, he obviously 2 misunderstood me: He did not pay for my tuition at 3 college. I'm still paying those school loans. But 4 he did pay for me to go to massage school and to 5 cosmetology school. 6 Okay. It pretty much ends here. 7 Q. Yes. Right. About halfway through the 8 page. 9 A. Okay. 10 MS. McCAWLEY: So, Johanna, that concludes 11 my initial piece. I'm going to reserve the 12 rest of my time for redirect. I'm going to 13 turn it over to Laura. 14 MS. MENNINGER: Can we take just a little 15 break? 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Sure, no problem. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 18 10:05. 19 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after 20 which the following proceedings were held:) 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 10:14. 22 E X A M I N A T I O N 23 BY MS. MENNINGER: 24 Q. Hi. 25 A. Hello. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 179 Page 51 1 Q. We've never met before today, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Can you tell me a little bit about your 4 current job? 5 A. Sure. I just purchased a salon. I'm a 6 salon owner. I'm a hairstylist. 7 Q. Congratulations. 8 A. Thank you. 9 Q. How long have you been a hairstylist? 10 A. For 10 years. 11 Q. And what did you do before that? 12 A. I briefly did massage in a spa for about a 13 year and a half. And before that I was a nanny, and 14 before that I was in school. 15 Q. And I believe you said you studied 16 psychology in school? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Did you graduate? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. With a degree in psychology? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Where did you get training to be a massage 23 therapist? 24 A. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 179 Page 52 1 Q. And when did do you that? 2 A. That would have been, I believe, in 3 Q. And how long did you study there? 4 A. I think it was a six-month program. 5 Q. And you worked in a spa thereafter? 6 A. I did. 7 Q. What was the name of the spa again? 8 A. 9 Q. And are you married? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you have children? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And how old are you now? 14 A. 15 Q. Can you tell me about your first meeting 16 with Ghislaine Maxwell? 17 A. Sure. I was sitting on a bench 18 . She approached me. 19 I was getting ready to go to a class. It was my 20 junior year. Yes, it was the second semester of my 21 junior year. And she and another woman approached 22 me. The other woman didn't speak that I recall. 23 And she asked me about -- she had a house 24 in Palm Beach, and she was looking for someone that 25 she could hire to work at the house, where she could MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of 179 Page 53 1 post that she needed help. 2 She then asked me if I knew anyone, and I 3 didn't know who she was, I didn't want to take the 4 responsibility of finding someone to work for her, 5 and so I said, Sorry, I don't. 6 And then she said, Well, maybe what about 7 you? 8 And I was at a point in life, I was super 9 spontaneous and willing to skip school. 10 So she said, Come to my house, come in my 11 car and check it out. 12 And so I did. 13 Q. Okay. So for those of you -- of us who 14 don't know, is this like a college campus, like a 15 traditional college campus, or is it in a city 16 setting? 17 A. It's in a city setting. I mean, Palm 18 Beach is not a big city. So it's on the 19 Intracoastal, and there was a big grassy area that 20 were surrounded by buildings, so she was inside of 21 the campus. 22 Q. And she was looking for a bulletin board 23 where she could post a job? 24 A. Something like that, yes. 25 Q. Did she have any kind of flyers -- MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of 179 Page 54 1 A. Not that I recall. 2 Q. But that's what she asked you, for 3 directions to a bulletin board where she could post 4 a job? 5 A. Yes. 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 7 BY MS. MENNINGER 8 Q. And it sounds like you guys got into a 9 conversation; is that fair? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Can you describe Ghislaine Maxwell's 12 personality? 13 A. Well, I instantly picked up on the fact 14 that she was British. She had on, like, workout 15 clothes. I believe she was wearing all black. And 16 she -- I mean, she was a little snarky, but I felt 17 comfortable enough to get in the car with her. 18 Q. And it sounds like you had contact with 19 her over the next several years; is that fair? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And did you get to know more about her 22 personality over those five years, four or five 23 years? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And can you describe her for me, how you MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of 179 Page 55 1 observed her personality to be? 2 A. Sure. She definitely had a great sense of 3 humor, she loved making jokes. I mean, in a very 4 British way. I don't remember her ever laughing, 5 but she was funny. 6 And I remember just thinking, she -- the 7 first weekend that we flew to the Virgin Islands, 8 she flew the helicopter from Saint, wherever we were 9 to little Saint Jeff [sic] or whatever the name of 10 the island was, and I just thought, wow, who is this 11 woman. 12 Q. Would you say that you respected her? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. When you ended up getting in the car with 15 her and this other woman and going back to the 16 house, who was driving the car? 17 A. She was driving. 18 Q. And where did she take you? 19 A. She took me to the house in Palm Beach. 20 Q. And can you describe the house in Palm 21 Beach? 22 A. Sure. It's at the end of El Brillo Way, 23 on the Intracoastal. The house was either white or 24 pink. It was pink at one time it may have been 25 painted. It was nothing fancy, it was large, it was MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 179 Page 56 1 like a beach house. 2 Q. And when you got there, do you remember 3 meeting other people while you were there that first 4 time? 5 A. I remember other people being in the home. 6 I don't really remember who was there. 7 Q. Do you remember meeting, like, a butler 8 or -- 9 A. Potentially, a chef. Someone in the 10 kitchen. Maybe a house manager, yeah. 11 Q. What was your impression of this other 12 woman that was with Ms. Maxwell at this time? 13 A. Zero. She left zero impression on me. 14 Q. Age, height, hair color? Nothing? 15 A. I want to say she was brunette. Age, 20s. 16 Yeah. 17 Q. And you were going for the purposes of 18 checking out potentially working at this job? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. It sounds like you met Jeffrey Epstein 21 that first time that you did go to the house, right? 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: I believe I either met him 24 that time or the next time. I can't recall. 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 57 of 179 Page 57 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Okay. And tell me about your first 3 meeting with him. 4 A. Sure. I met him, I believe it was in the 5 hallway right beside the kitchen. There was a 6 hallway. It was actually more like a room, a pantry 7 type of room. That's where all of the pieces of 8 paper with the phone messages would lay. 9 And I remember sitting on the counter and 10 speaking with him, and he was in a bathrobe, and he 11 spoke with me about me being in college and studying 12 psychology. 13 Q. And did you form an opinion of him in that 14 first meeting? 15 A. I -- yeah. I believed that he was smart. 16 He was personable and could speak to anyone. 17 Q. Did he give off any sexual vibes in the 18 first meeting? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And where was Ghislaine when you were 21 speaking with Mr. Epstein? 22 A. I don't recall. 23 Q. Do you recall going to a second floor of 24 the home during that first meeting? 25 A. I don't recall. Ghislaine said at one MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 58 of 179 Page 58 1 point, You might get a massage today. That was -- 2 sorry, that was the second time when I was in the 3 home working. And I just thought it was crazy that 4 I would get a massage while I was working. But it 5 did not end up happening because the masseuse could 6 not stay. 7 Q. Do you know who the masseuse was that 8 could not stay? 9 A. No. 10 Q. But that didn't happen on the first 11 meeting; you believe that was the second meeting? 12 A. Yes, that was when I was there to work. 13 Q. How long -- how did the first trip to the 14 house end? 15 A. She gave me her phone number, and she took 16 my phone number, and she took me back to school. 17 Q. And were you full-time at school at the 18 time? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And how many classes were you taking, if 21 you remember? 22 A. Probably four or five. 23 Q. How did you -- how long was it before you 24 heard from Ms. Maxwell again? 25 A. Within probably three days. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 59 of 179 Page 59 1 Q. And how did she contact you? 2 A. She called me on my -- at that time I had 3 a cell phone. It could have been on my cell phone. 4 It could have been on my house phone. We had house 5 phones back then. 6 Q. I remember. 7 Where were you living at the time? 8 A. I was in an apartment in West Palm Beach. 9 Q. And did you have a roommate or with 10 family? 11 A. I had a roommate. 12 Q. So when Ms. Maxwell called you on whatever 13 phone it was, do you remember what she said? 14 A. Yeah. She said, Do you want to come over 15 and work on Sunday? 16 Q. And what did you say? 17 A. I said, Sure. 18 Q. And did you? 19 A. I did. 20 Q. How did you get there? 21 A. That I don't recall, because I did not 22 have a car. 23 Q. Did you -- 24 A. I think my roommate dropped me off, 25 honestly. I can remember what I was wearing. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 60 of 179 Page 60 1 Q. You do? 2 A. I do. 3 Q. What were you wearing? 4 A. I had a -- I still have the shirt. It's 5 an old, weathered, blue, North Carolina Tech Tar 6 Heels T-shirt. 7 Q. Because you -- did Ms. Maxwell explain to 8 you what you would be doing on that Sunday when you 9 came to work or was that part of the prior 10 conversation? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: About what I was wearing? 13 BY MS. MENNINGER: 14 Q. No. About what you were going to do at 15 work. 16 A. She had explained that she just wanted 17 someone to help out around the house, answering 18 phones, you know, grabbing drinks if someone wanted 19 a drink, running errands. 20 Q. And so you dressed appropriate to what you 21 believed -- 22 A. I did not know how to dress properly, 23 apparently. I should not have worn that. But I was 24 in college. 25 Q. Did anyone say anything to you? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 61 of 179 Page 61 1 A. No. 2 Q. So when you got there, what happened? 3 This is your second time to the house, but your 4 first time working, right? 5 A. Yes. 6 I was probably introduced to a few people 7 that were there. I mean, I was there for several 8 hours. Do I recall every minute? No. I just 9 recall when I would actually have to work, answer 10 the phone, pour some drinks for people. Just water; 11 they didn't drink alcohol. And run errands. There 12 were a few errands that I ran. 13 Q. You described those errands earlier? 14 A. I did. In her car. 15 Q. You used her car? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What kind of car was it? 18 A. It was a Mercedes convertible. 19 Q. Did anyone go with you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. You described a shopping trip. Was that 22 in the same car? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was that a separate trip than when you 25 went to run errands? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 62 of 179 Page 62 1 A. Yes. That's when Ghislaine went with me 2 and she drove. 3 Q. Okay. So you ran errands, came back, more 4 than once? 5 A. Twice. 6 Q. And then you went on a shopping trip? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. During the time you were at the home, was 9 there anything that made you suspicious? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Or leery? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You mentioned there may have been some 14 discussion of a massage. Do you recall that 15 discussion? 16 A. I had never had a massage before. So she 17 just said there was a massage therapist coming and I 18 may get one. 19 Q. Did she say who it was? 20 A. No. 21 Q. So when you went shopping on this trip, 22 you said Ghislaine drove the car and you went with 23 her. Was anyone else there? 24 A. No. 25 Q. And where did you all go? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 63 of 179 Page 63 1 A. We went to Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, but 2 because it was Sunday, the stores were closed. 3 Bless you. 4 MR. LOUIS: Thank you. 5 THE WITNESS: So from there, we went to -- 6 I believe it was Palm Beach Daily News, which 7 was like a little book store. And I remember 8 her purchasing reading glasses for Jeffrey and 9 some magazines. 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: 11 Q. Were those things for the home? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And earlier on your errands, you had been 14 purchasing things for the home or office? 15 A. Yes. Yes. 16 Q. Besides the printer cartridge, ink 17 cartridge, do you remember anything else? 18 A. Well, yes. Like they wanted specific 19 magazines. I don't know if it was, like, Scientific 20 American or something to that effect. It was 21 wasn't, like, Playboy. 22 Q. Okay. Did you ever answer phones? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. When did you answer phones? 25 A. That day. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 64 of 179 Page 64 1 Q. Do you remember anything notable about the 2 phone calls? 3 A. I just remember I always had to say, He's 4 unavailable, can I take a message? 5 Q. And where did you take a message? 6 A. On a little notepad next to the phone. 7 Q. Do you recall any small children calling 8 the house that day? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Were you speaking to anyone about their 11 school experience or anything like that? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you take any messages for famous 14 people? 15 A. They could have been famous and I would 16 have been clueless. 17 Q. Did you take messages at any other point 18 during the time that you worked with Jeffrey? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And you said you remember at the end of 21 that day being paid by Ghislaine? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And you were paid for doing the errands 24 and answering phones and whatever else you did? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 65 of 179 Page 65 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: 3 Q. Did you do anything else that day in terms 4 of errands or things around the house that you 5 remember? 6 A. Not that I recall. 7 Q. Did you come back to answer phones and do 8 errands any other day? 9 A. No. 10 Q. That was the only day you did it? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. All right. 13 Tell me the second time -- how long was it 14 before you got another sort of contact from anybody 15 at the home? 16 A. Okay. Well, after that -- I remember 17 actually that day of working, I sat with Ghislaine 18 outside on this -- outside table on the patio by the 19 pool. I told her that I was getting ready to go to 20 Nicaragua for spring break on a mission trip. I 21 remember her going, Why would you ever go to 22 Nicaragua? So I was going to be gone the next week 23 for spring break. 24 So she called, after I returned, and asked 25 if I wanted to make $100 an hour rubbing feet. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 66 of 179 Page 66 1 Q. Was that the whole conversation? 2 A. That was pretty much it. I said, Okay, 3 sure, tell me when. 4 Q. And were you excited about the prospect of 5 rubbing feet and making $100? 6 A. I was actually with -- while I was on the 7 trip in Nicaragua, I was rubbing feet, I was 8 massaging people, their feet. So it just seemed 9 kind of crazy that it all happened at the same time. 10 Q. How was it rubbing feet? 11 A. I guess I just liked doing it. I didn't 12 know that I did, but I was massaging people's feet. 13 Q. Were these strangers? 14 A. No, no, no. They were -- it was a group 15 of us that went on the trip. So we were all very 16 close. 17 Q. What kind of trip was it? 18 A. It was a -- well, a PBA, you had to do 19 these things called Workship hours, which you had to 20 do community service, 40 hours every year. And so 21 that was the way to do them all, and you would go on 22 these trips and help build a school or feed children 23 or do some sort of -- something nice. 24 Q. Nice. 25 What other trips did you take while you MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 67 of 179 Page 67 1 were there? 2 A. I did a trip and worked with Habitat for 3 Humanity in Baltimore. And then I went back to 4 Nicaragua the next year and did the same thing. 5 Q. Very nice. 6 And you were there for a whole week? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. All right. 9 So you got a call from Ghislaine after you 10 returned? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that's when she asked you about 13 rubbing feet? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And did she tell you when she would like 16 you to come over? 17 A. It was either that night or the next day. 18 Q. And do you know how you got there? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know what you were wearing? 21 A. No, I don't remember. 22 Q. When you got there, I think you said you 23 don't remember if Ghislaine was actually there the 24 second time? 25 A. I want to believe that she was there MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 68 of 179 Page 68 1 because she was my main contact, and so I would 2 assume that she was probably at the house and 3 greeted me; however, I do not recall if she was 4 there. 5 Q. It sounds like you met Emmy Taylor? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. How did you meet Emmy Taylor? 8 A. She was at the house the first day that I 9 worked running errands. And I realized she was also 10 a personal assistant type of person. 11 Q. Do you know who she worked for? 12 A. She, well, Ghislaine, it appeared to me 13 that she worked for Ghislaine. Ghislaine sort of 14 told her what to do and where to go. 15 Q. And I believe you mentioned she called her 16 her slave? 17 A. She did. It was in a joking way, but she 18 said, Yes, that's my slave. 19 Q. You did not see her in any type of slavery 20 situation? 21 A. Not any chains or anything of the sort, 22 no. 23 Q. So tell me what you remember about the 24 second time you went. 25 A. The third time? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 69 of 179 Page 69 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: 3 Q. I'm sorry. You're right. Third time. 4 The second time you went to work, but the third time 5 you were there. 6 A. Correct. 7 So I was escorted up to the bathroom, 8 which is where 99 percent of the massages happened. 9 And Emmy Taylor was with me and Jeffrey. And I 10 don't remember the order, but Emmy was on the table 11 at one point. She took all of her clothes off, got 12 on the table. 13 I remember thinking, Okay, she's just 14 going to strip naked and get on the table. Well, 15 that's cool. We're cool. That's what we do. 16 And Jeffrey was showing me how to massage 17 on her body. And then I took my clothes off and got 18 on the table, and then they showed me what it felt 19 like with the both of them. 20 And then Jeffrey got on the table and Emmy 21 showed me how to massage. 22 Q. So Ghislaine was not in the room? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You said that 99 percent of the massages 25 took place in the bathroom. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 70 of 179 Page 70 1 Did you see massages take place in other 2 places of the house at all? 3 A. Did I see any? No, besides us maybe 4 hanging out on the couch and someone massaging his 5 foot or me massaging his foot. But not, like, on a 6 table. 7 Q. So just casual foot-rubbing might happen 8 elsewhere in the home, but not a full-blown, full 9 body massage? 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: 13 Q. Did you see any full-blown, full body 14 massages out by the pool? 15 A. Not that I recall. 16 Q. And do you remember ever giving any 17 yourself? 18 A. By the pool? 19 Q. Out by the pool, yes. 20 A. On a table? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. No. 23 Q. All right. 24 You said that you had subsequently been 25 trained as a massage therapist, correct? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 71 of 179 Page 71 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Would you describe it as normal massage 3 protocol for a person to be naked under a towel 4 during a massage, a regular massage? 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: Naked under a towel during a 7 massage, the person getting massaged? 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And as a massage therapist, you're trained 12 how to drape the person so that they're covered in 13 the right places, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So when you were being trained by Emmy and 16 Jeffrey on some massage techniques, did anyone say 17 anything sexual during that conversation? 18 A. Not that I recall. 19 Q. What was the mood like? Was it, you know, 20 laughing? 21 A. Yes. Comfortable. 22 Q. And just to clarify, the people who were 23 giving the massages at the various points in time 24 were clothed while they were doing that, correct? 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 72 of 179 Page 72 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. In this period you just described with 3 Emmy Taylor and Jeffrey in a bathroom upstairs on 4 your third visit to the house, people giving the 5 massages had their clothes on, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. All right. 8 What was the next time you remember coming 9 to the house there? 10 A. The next time was to do a massage. All by 11 myself. 12 Q. Okay. And how did that one come about? 13 A. Hmm, someone must have called me, but I 14 don't remember who. 15 Q. And to whom did you give the massage on 16 this next visit to the house? 17 A. Jeffrey. 18 Q. Was Ghislaine present during that massage? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Did anything unusual occur during that 21 massage? 22 A. After. 23 Q. What happened? After the massage? 24 A. He asked me how well do I orgasm. And I 25 said, I don't, I'm a virgin. And he was quite MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 73 of 179 Page 73 1 surprised. 2 Q. Where were you when you were having this 3 discussion? 4 A. In the bathroom. 5 Q. Were you clothed? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was he clothed? 8 A. I don't remember him being naked. He was 9 probably either wrapped with a towel or in a 10 bathrobe. 11 Q. Were you caught off guard by this 12 question? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was that the first time anyone had said 15 anything sexual to you during this -- 16 A. Ever? Yes. 17 Q. Did he say anything else that you recall 18 during that conversation? 19 A. I mean, we had a little bit of a 20 conversation about it, but I don't recall 21 specifically. 22 Q. And how did that massage encounter end? 23 A. Normal. There was nothing I had to do, 24 just normal massage. 25 Q. Did he pay you? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 74 of 179 Page 74 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. How much did he pay you? 3 A. $200. 4 Q. How did he pay you? 5 A. Cash. 6 Q. And where was the cash? 7 A. I don't recall specifically. It was 8 either -- he brought it upstairs with him or it 9 would have been down on his desk. 10 Q. And I'm assuming that you had other 11 massages that you gave him under similar 12 circumstances in the next years, right? 13 A. Many, right. 14 Q. So recalling this particular one is not 15 sticking out in your mind? 16 A. Yes. 17 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: 19 Q. Do you remember the next time after that? 20 A. I don't. I mean, from there, it's just a 21 blur of random invites to come over and do it. 22 Massage was, like, I would see him maybe three days 23 a row, and I wouldn't see him for two months. It 24 would be kind of that irregular schedule. 25 Q. Do you ever recall a time where you came MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 75 of 179 Page 75 1 over every day for three weeks in a row? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Were you paid $200 per massage? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And how long did the massages last? 6 A. Anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a 7 half. 8 Q. Did you ever give a four-hour massage to 9 him? 10 A. Good grief, no, not that I recall. 11 Q. Have you ever given a four-hour massage to 12 anyone in your whole life? 13 A. No, I haven't. 14 Q. Tell me how the whole idea of traveling to 15 New York came up. 16 A. I actually was not home. They called 17 my -- my apartment. My roommate answered. When I 18 got home, she said, You need to call Jeffrey Epstein 19 immediately. He wants to take you to New York, but 20 they are leaving at 4:00. 21 And I was excited because I had never been 22 to New York. 23 Q. Are you from 24 A. I am. 25 Q. But you never went to New York? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 76 of 179 Page 76 1 A. Just flying over it. 2 Q. When you said they called, do you know who 3 called your roommate? 4 A. I don't know who called my roommate. 5 Q. In this sort of pre-trip to New York 6 period, do you recall discussing any of the 7 particulars of your massages with Jeffrey, with 8 Ghislaine? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: 11 Q. If that makes sense. 12 A. No. 13 Q. So before you got this call, had anyone 14 mentioned the idea of traveling to you? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you call Jeffrey immediately? 17 A. I did. 18 Q. And what conversation did you have with 19 him? 20 A. Basically he said, I want to take you 21 to -- to New York City. Can you be here quickly? 22 And I got to the house, and he said, Do 23 you have your passport? 24 I said, No. 25 He said, Go get it. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 77 of 179 Page 77 1 So I went back and picked up my passport, 2 and went back to the house before we went to the 3 airport. 4 Q. And why did you need your passport? 5 A. I was ready to find out. I had no idea. 6 Q. This was the spontaneous phase? 7 A. Exactly. 8 Q. So you went and got your passport. You 9 came back. And then what happened? 10 A. Then we went to the airport. 11 Q. And who is we? 12 A. So, I don't remember the ride to the 13 airport, but the people that I recall being on the 14 plane was Jeffrey, Ghislaine, Virginia and I. 15 Q. And when was the first time you met 16 Virginia? 17 A. I believe it was that day. 18 Q. In your previous visits to the house, had 19 you seen her there? 20 A. Not that I recall. 21 Q. And what was your impression the first day 22 you met her? 23 A. She seemed young and blond and cute. 24 Q. What was her personality like? 25 A. I honestly don't recall her personality. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 78 of 179 Page 78 1 Bubbly. 2 Q. Did you see her in the plane or on the 3 trip to New York engaged in any kind of affectionate 4 or sexual contact with Jeffrey? 5 A. No. 6 Q. With Ghislaine? 7 A. No. 8 Q. How did it come to be that you were in a 9 casino in Atlantic City? 10 A. We, as we were flying, Jeffrey said, Why 11 don't you go sit in the cockpit to check out the 12 landing? 13 So we were sitting there, and the pilots 14 told me to go back and tell him that we can't land 15 in New York and that we were going to have to land 16 in Atlantic City. 17 Jeffrey said, Great, we'll call up Trump 18 and we'll go to -- I don't recall the name of the 19 casino, but -- we'll go to the casino. 20 Q. And what happened with an ID issue? 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection: 22 THE WITNESS: All I knew is that she was 23 not going to be allowed to gamble, and so I 24 spent time with her. We were just walking 25 around. I don't remember what we did. Because MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 79 of 179 Page 79 1 either she didn't have an ID or she was too 2 young. I don't remember specifically why. I 3 just knew that she could not gamble. 4 BY MS. MENNINGER: 5 Q. Okay. So you walked around with her in 6 Atlantic City? 7 A. Uh-huh. In the casino. We never left the 8 casino. 9 Q. Were you disappointed that you couldn't 10 gamble? 11 A. No. 12 Q. When you were walking around and talking 13 to her, did you learn anything about her? 14 A. Not that I recall. 15 Q. Did you have an impression about why she 16 was on the trip? 17 A. At that point, no. I was so new to the 18 whole thing, I was just trying to figure out my 19 position and who everybody was. At that point, I 20 had no idea -- I didn't know anything sexual was 21 happening at all. So I just felt like she was just 22 another visitor. 23 Q. Did she tell you at that time that she had 24 been to New York with Jeffrey before? 25 A. Not that I recall. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 80 of 179 Page 80 1 Q. Did she tell you anything about Ghislaine 2 during that walk-about? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And then you all traveled on to New York 5 that same night? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. How long were you in New York for that 8 visit? 9 A. It was maybe two nights. 10 Q. And where did you sleep at night? 11 A. I slept in one of the guest rooms at his 12 townhouse on 71st Street. 13 Q. And did you stay in the same room as 14 Virginia? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you know where she stayed? 17 A. No. 18 Q. All right. 19 And then when you got into Manhattan, how 20 did it come to be that you were doing some 21 sightseeing? 22 A. Well, they knew that I had never been, so 23 I believe Jeffrey asked the driver and Emmy just to 24 drive me around to see the Empire State Building. 25 That's all I remember. It was late. It was dark. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 81 of 179 Page 81 1 It wasn't long, maybe 30 minutes. 2 Q. When you got back to the house, what 3 happened? 4 A. I walked into the front door, and 5 Ghislaine stuck her head over the grand staircase 6 and asked me to come upstairs into the living room. 7 Q. And can you describe the living room? 8 A. Oh, it was very large and very formal. 9 And Jeffrey and her and Virginia and Prince Andrew 10 were there. 11 Q. What were they all doing when you came in? 12 A. Just socializing. I don't remember them 13 doing an activity. It was just being together. 14 Q. Was anyone unclothed? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Was this the same room where Jeffrey had a 17 desk? 18 A. It could have been, but I can't remember. 19 Q. Did you go to New York more than one time? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How many times did you go to New York? 22 A. Two times. 23 Q. This was the only time that you met Prince 24 Andrew in New York, though? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 82 of 179 Page 82 1 Q. When you came upstairs, where was Virginia 2 sitting? 3 A. I don't remember. 4 Q. Do you remember what she was wearing? 5 A. No. 6 Q. She was already there when you got back 7 from sightseeing? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Tell me what happened with the caricature. 10 A. Ghislaine asked me to come to a closet. 11 She just said, Come with me. We went to a closet 12 and grabbed the puppet, the puppet of Prince Andrew. 13 And I knew it was Prince Andrew because I had 14 recognized him as a person. I didn't know who he 15 was. 16 And so when I saw the tag that said Prince 17 Andrew, then it clicked. I'm like, that's who it 18 is. 19 And we went down -- back down to the 20 living room, and she brought it in. It was just 21 funny because -- he thought it was funny because it 22 was him. 23 Q. Tell me how it came to be that there was a 24 picture taken. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 83 of 179 Page 83 1 THE WITNESS: I just remember someone 2 suggesting a photo, and they told us to go get 3 on the couch. And so Andrew and Virginia sat 4 on the couch, and they put the puppet, the 5 puppet on her lap. 6 And so then I sat on Andrew's lap, and I 7 believe on my own volition, and they took the 8 puppet's hands and put it on Virginia's breast, 9 and so Andrew put his on mine. 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: 11 Q. And this was done in a joking manner? 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 BY MS. MENNINGER: 15 Q. Do you recall a photo being taken of that 16 event? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You've never seen the photo? 19 A. No. 20 Q. You don't know whose camera it was? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Virginia was sitting on the couch next to 23 Andrew, not in a big leather armchair? 24 A. Maybe. I'm just trying to remember how I 25 remember it. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 84 of 179 Page 84 1 Q. To the best of your recollection, you went 2 and sat on Andrew's lap, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. On his knee? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And Virginia was not sitting on his knee, 7 correct? 8 A. I don't recall. I just remember I was -- 9 she might have been on his other knee, like Santa. 10 I don't remember. 11 Q. After that, do you remember any other 12 pieces of that social engagement? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you know where you went? 15 A. From there, I went to bed. 16 Q. Were people drinking? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you hear Ghislaine Maxwell tell 19 Virginia to do anything while you were in that room? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you recall what happened the next day 22 in New York? 23 A. Bits. I mean, that was the day I went to 24 Victoria's Secret. I went and walked around by 25 myself and went to a souvenir shop, got a mug or MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 85 of 179 Page 85 1 something. That's all I recall. 2 Q. Did you go anywhere with Virginia? 3 A. Oh, my gosh, yes. We went to Phantom of 4 the Opera. 5 Q. Who else went? 6 A. I think it was just she and I. I forgot 7 about that. Thank you for that memory. 8 Q. It's my job. 9 Anything else you remember about that day 10 in New York? 11 A. No. 12 Q. You said you had given a massage to 13 Jeffrey while you were there on that trip or was it 14 a subsequent trip? 15 A. That trip. 16 Q. And how did that come to be? 17 A. Either he or somebody asked me to go and 18 do it. Someone showed me to the room, but I don't 19 remember who it was. 20 Q. Can you describe that room? 21 A. Yes. It was high ceilings, dark. There 22 were, like, dark red walls or dark blue walls or 23 dark blue carpeting or something. It had a massage 24 table set up in the middle, and there was a large -- 25 I want to say like a 15-foot photo, either photo or MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 86 of 179 Page 86 1 painting of a naked girl. 2 Q. Pornographic or artistic? 3 A. No. No, I wouldn't say pornographic. 4 Artistic. 5 Q. Artistic. 6 Was Ghislaine present during that massage? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did something about that particular 9 massage session stand out to you? 10 A. Yes. That was when I was first asked to 11 squeeze and rub his nipples while he pleasured 12 himself. 13 Q. And did he say that's what he was going to 14 do? 15 A. He -- yes, he was just very blunt about 16 it. He said, Rub my nipples, I'm going to jerk off. 17 I was like, No, done. 18 Q. And you walked out? 19 A. I did. 20 Q. Were there any repercussions of you 21 walking out? 22 A. Amazingly, no. Knowing what I know now, 23 I'm surprised I was ever called back. But, no, I 24 just stood my ground and walked out. I'm not 25 comfortable with that. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 87 of 179 Page 87 1 Q. Do you know personally whether anyone else 2 had said no to him? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did anyone ever tell you that they had 5 been in a massage scenario and told him no? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do you recall when in your trip the 8 massage occurred? 9 A. Well, it was not the day we landed. It 10 must have been that next day that we were there. 11 Q. Do you remember anything else about 12 Virginia from that trip other than the Prince Andrew 13 thing and Phantom of the Opera? 14 A. Well, we were getting ready to leave to go 15 to the airport, and we were waiting. She and I sat 16 on the steps in the foyer. I do remember just kind 17 of asking a few questions to try to understand her 18 role, because at that point now I knew what he 19 wanted from me in the massage. And -- but she did 20 not make it clear to me that she was participating 21 in that. So I was prodding gently to see if there 22 was anything happening that shouldn't have been, 23 because I was getting the impression that she was -- 24 she told me she was 17. 25 Q. She told you she was 17? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 88 of 179 Page 88 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q. How did that come up? 3 A. I asked her. 4 Q. Was anyone else present during this 5 conversation? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You mentioned in your earlier testimony 8 that she seemed orphan-like. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. But you said that was something you had 11 said to Ms. McCawley, correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. That was not said at the time? 14 A. Right. No. At the time I was getting an 15 impression that she did not have a family or she had 16 walked away from her family. And it seemed to me, 17 you know, they had just sort of adopted her, not as 18 a child, but they would take care of her. 19 Q. Did you observe anyone speaking to her as 20 a child, like make up your bed? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you observe whether she was using 23 drugs during that trip? 24 A. No. 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 89 of 179 Page 89 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Did you ever observe her using drugs? 3 A. Not that I recall. 4 Q. Did she tell you that she was using Xanax? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Cocaine? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Ecstasy? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Heroin? 11 A. No. 12 Q. When was the second trip you took to New 13 York? 14 A. Later. Maybe 2005. I don't know. I 15 could look in the flight record. 16 Q. That's all right. 17 A. I don't remember exactly. 18 Q. That's all right. 19 You just recall it being several years or 20 so after? 21 A. Yes. Several years later. 22 Q. And just so I'm clear, can you just list 23 for me the places you recall traveling with Jeffrey? 24 A. Yes. That first trip was New York and the 25 Virgin Islands. And then not again until around MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 90 of 179 Page 90 1 2005, we went to New Mexico and to New York City and 2 the Virgin Islands. 3 Q. So you were in New York twice and the 4 Virgin Islands twice and New Mexico once? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Anywhere else? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Were those primarily on the private plane? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You said you flew commercially once to get 11 back? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you recall any other commercial 14 flights? 15 A. He bought a couple of flights for me when 16 I wanted to go up to New York for personal reasons. 17 One time I went to New York commercially, and I was 18 there with friends, but I did go over to his house 19 while I was in the city. 20 Q. And that's not the trip to New York? 21 A. No. Separate. 22 Q. Would you characterize your relationship 23 with Jeffrey as friendly? 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 91 of 179 Page 91 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. If you asked him to buy a ticket to New 3 York, that might be something that he would do? 4 A. I never asked him to do anything for me, 5 but I told him I was interested in something, and he 6 always offered. 7 Q. The second trip to New York, anything 8 memorable about that? The one -- I'm sorry, the one 9 that you mentioned that was with Jeffrey. 10 A. I do recall Nadia being there. While I 11 massaged, she gave him a facial, but nothing sexual 12 happened. 13 Q. And do you recall if Ghislaine was part of 14 that trip or not? 15 A. I remember her being in New Mexico. 16 Q. What do you remember about her being in 17 New Mexico? 18 A. I remember she took me to -- when they 19 were building the ranch, they had a little 20 three-bedroom home, just like a prefab house. She 21 took me over there. So we went for a little walk. 22 I remember she had two new puppies named 23 Max and Mini, little Yorkies. And I want to say 24 that it was around Jeffrey's birthday when we were 25 there, but nothing -- there was no, like, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 92 of 179 Page 92 1 celebration or cake with candles. It was just 2 another day. 3 Q. You said that the Virgin Islands were a 4 part of that second trip, as well? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And do you remember Ghislaine being part 7 of the Virgin Islands the second time? 8 A. Yes. That's when she called -- went to 9 bed and kissed us all on the head and called us her 10 children. 11 Q. Who were the other participants in that 12 session? 13 A. That's who -- I don't recall who was 14 there. I want to say that Nadia was. 15 Q. But Virginia was not there? 16 A. Virginia was not there. 17 Q. Do you recall the point in time in which 18 Virginia went away? 19 A. Sort of. After the trip to New York, I 20 was given her phone number to call. And I remember 21 one time I tried to get ahold of her. Her boyfriend 22 answered. A boyfriend, I would assume, and he 23 sounded like he was high. And I couldn't find out 24 where she was. And then from there on, she was out 25 of the picture. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 93 of 179 Page 93 1 Q. Do you recall how long after the New York 2 trip that occurred? 3 A. I would say it was probably within a month 4 or two. 5 Q. Did she tell you she was working 6 elsewhere? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did you ask her? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did she mention that she was a waitress? 11 A. No. 12 Q. And worked at Taco Bell? 13 A. Huh-huh. 14 Q. Did you speak to her boyfriend or a 15 boyfriend at any other time associated with her? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you meet her boyfriend? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Her fiancé? 20 A. No. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 22 BY MS. MENNINGER: 23 Q. When you were on the plane with Jeffrey 24 during these two trips, he was present on all of 25 those flights? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 94 of 179 Page 94 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you observe any sexual behavior 3 happening on the plane? 4 A. No. He told me a story of something that 5 had happened one time. 6 Q. Did it involve Ghislaine Maxwell? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did it involve Virginia Roberts? 9 A. No. 10 Q. And you didn't see anything? 11 A. No. 12 Q. You did give massages to Ghislaine 13 Maxwell, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. On how many occasions? 16 A. Maybe somewhere between five and 10. 17 Q. Was that over the course of the five 18 years? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was there some point during that five 21 years where Ghislaine Maxwell was not around as 22 much? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you recall when that was? 25 A. In the middle. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 95 of 179 Page 95 1 Q. Did you know why that might be? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Is that about the time that you started 4 seeing Nadia more frequently? 5 A. Yeah, I guess she was probably in the 6 picture more. Her and Sarah both had kind of been 7 around the most. 8 Q. Did you observe Nadia or Sarah appearing 9 to act like Jeffrey's girlfriend? 10 A. Nadia, not Sarah. 11 Q. What did you observe? 12 A. She was just very loving, kissing him. 13 Q. Did you know how old she was? 14 A. I didn't know. 15 Q. So you gave massages to Ghislaine five or 16 10 times. Was there anything unusual about those 17 massages? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You've been quoted in the press perhaps as 20 saying that she wasn't very picky? 21 A. About massage? 22 Q. About her massages. 23 A. Not like Jeffrey, I guess. I mean, saying 24 that meant that, you know, I would do whatever I 25 wanted to do in the massage; whereas, Jeffrey was, MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 96 of 179 Page 96 1 like, Do my foot, do my leg. He would kind of 2 narrate what he wanted. She just wanted a massage. 3 So if that makes sense. 4 Q. She may have been naked under a towel -- 5 A. Definitely. 6 Q. -- in a regular massage fashion? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. Actually, I do recall 9 an instance where I was massaging her and 10 Jeffrey came into the room and he did something 11 sort of sexual to her, whether it was fondling 12 her or slapping her butt or something, and she 13 brushed him off like she was embarrassed. 14 BY MS. MENNINGER: 15 Q. So she never asked you to touch her in a 16 sexual manner, correct? 17 A. No. 18 Q. And she did not rub her breasts on you, 19 for example? 20 A. No. 21 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 22 BY MS. MENNINGER: 23 Q. She did not demand that you perform oral 24 sex on her? 25 A. No. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 97 of 179 Page 97 1 Q. Did she did not demand that you undress 2 during your massages? 3 A. No. 4 Q. There was nothing from her that was sexual 5 during the massages that you gave to her? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 9 Q. Do you recall when the last time you gave 10 her a massage was? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Do you recall meeting with her in about 13 2006 when she was in town for some helicopter 14 training? 15 A. I do recall that. 16 Q. Do you recall giving her some massages 17 during that period? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you remember going out to dinner with 20 her and to a movie? 21 A. I remember to a movie, and I don't 22 remember if we went to dinner. I remember her 23 cooking dinner. That was another way she impressed 24 me: She knew how to cook like a chef. She had done 25 some culinary training. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 98 of 179 Page 98 1 Q. And you guys had a normal type 2 conversation? 3 A. Yes. It was very fun. 4 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 5 MS. MENNINGER: I would like to take about 6 a 5-, to 10-minute break, if that's okay. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 8 11:05. 9 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after 10 which the following proceedings were held:) 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning 12 of Disk 2. On the record at 11:25. 13 BY MS. MENNINGER: 14 Q. Hi. I believe when we left off I was 15 asking you about massages that you gave to 16 Ghislaine. 17 Did Ghislaine pay you when she got a 18 massage from you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you know how much she paid you? 21 A. I believe it was 200. It was the going 22 rate. 23 Q. The same as you were getting paid by 24 Jeffrey, correct? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 99 of 179 Page 99 1 Q. Ghislaine was not present when you were 2 giving massages to Jeffrey, correct? 3 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. 5 BY MS. MENNINGER: 6 Q. At some point Jeffrey became more 7 aggressive with you, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: 11 Q. At what point was that? 12 A. In the last year. 13 Q. And what does that mean to you, "became 14 more aggressive"? 15 A. He was pressuring me to do more than I was 16 comfortable with doing. 17 Q. Is that what ultimately caused you to 18 leave working for Jeffrey? 19 A. What caused me to leave was when it was 20 made public what I was doing. 21 Q. What do you mean by that? 22 A. Well, after I had spoken with the police 23 report -- the police and there was a police report, 24 I did not realize that was public knowledge, 25 journalists would get a hold of. So at one point MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 100 of 179 Page 100 1 the news channel 12 showed up at my door asking me 2 questions. 3 Q. When Jeffrey was pressuring you to do more 4 than you felt comfortable with, did you observe him 5 being more aggressive in general? Outside of the 6 massage context? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: 10 Q. Do you know whether he was taking any type 11 of steroids? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you ever see him wearing a patch or 14 something like that? 15 A. I don't recall. 16 Q. Did you tell anyone that Jeffrey was 17 becoming more aggressive with you contemporaneous 18 with when it was happening? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: No. 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: 22 Q. When Jeffrey asked you to do other things 23 besides a normal massage, did he offer to pay you 24 additionally? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 101 of 179 Page 101 1 Q. How much? 2 A. One hundred dollars extra. 3 Can I clarify? 4 Q. Absolutely. 5 A. He didn't ever say he would pay me more, 6 but when the massage was more than just a massage 7 and it was sexual, then he would pay me more. 8 Q. It wasn't a discussion; it's just what 9 happened? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Thank you for clarifying. 12 The things that took place with you and 13 Jeffrey behind closed doors were when you were a 14 consenting adult, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: 19 Q. And you did not have knowledge of what 20 took place with other women behind closed doors and 21 Jeffrey, correct? 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: Correct. 24 BY MS. MENNINGER: 25 Q. Do you recall giving an interview to a MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 102 of 179 Page 102 1 reporter from the Mail on Sunday? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You told that reporter, I believe, that 4 the police report painted a picture that it was a 5 big orgy all the time, but it wasn't? 6 A. What I saw, I did not see anything out in 7 the open sexually. Me, personally. 8 Q. Right. You did not see orgies happening 9 in the pool, for example? 10 A. No. 11 Q. You did not see people engaging in sexual 12 conduct out in the open areas of the home, correct? 13 A. Right. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: 16 Q. When you became aware of the allegations 17 against Jeffrey, those came as a surprise to you, 18 correct? 19 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: Correct. 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: 22 Q. And the surprise was that it involved 23 underaged girls making that allegation, correct? 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: Correct. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 103 of 179 Page 103 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. You were asked some questions with 3 Ms. McCawley about nude photographs that were 4 present in the home? Homes? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. In Palm Beach, I believe you said there 7 were some in the room where the massage table was? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Can you tell me what you recall seeing? 10 A. It wasn't candid photos. They were all, 11 like, staged. 12 Q. Like a model? 13 A. Yes. And my -- I don't recall necessarily 14 knowing any of the people in those photos. I 15 remember at one point there was a photo of myself, 16 but... 17 Q. Were they fully frontally nude or were 18 they staged, like, with, you know, parts of bodies 19 showing? 20 A. I really only remember topless photos. I 21 don't remember full frontal photos. 22 Q. So exposing the breasts, but not exposing 23 the genitalia? 24 A. Not that I recall. And Ghislaine's 25 bathroom, I believe there was a photo of her MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 104 of 179 Page 104 1 topless, or a painting. 2 Q. A painting? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. Did you see any nude or semi-clad photos 5 of young girls? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Preteens, for example? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Something you would consider child 10 pornography? 11 A. Never. 12 Q. Other than in the bathroom or the massage 13 room at the Palm Beach home, do you recall any other 14 place in the Palm Beach home where you saw any of 15 these topless photos of women? 16 A. I remember there being photos everywhere, 17 and the ones that stick out in my memory are the 18 ones -- there was a photo of Ghislaine with the 19 Pope. It would not surprise me if there were naked 20 photos around. I just didn't retain them in my 21 memory. 22 Q. So when you say there were photos 23 everywhere, you mean just photos in general? 24 A. Yes. They had a lot of photos around the 25 house. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 105 of 179 Page 105 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: 3 Q. And Ghislaine was not topless in a photo 4 with the Pope, just so I'm clear? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. I just want to make sure we get that 7 record really clear. 8 So you recall there being photos 9 everywhere; you just remember a couple sticking out 10 in your brain as being topless? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And the walls on the staircase to the 13 upstairs were not just covered with nude 14 photographs, to your recollection? 15 A. To my recollection, I just -- I don't 16 remember. 17 Q. Did you observe what you would consider to 18 be child pornography on any computer in the home? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Did you observe anyone taking photographs 21 of young girls in the home? 22 A. No. 23 Q. The photograph of yourself that you saw, 24 was that something that you had posed for? 25 A. Not, like, professionally. But I was just MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 106 of 179 Page 106 1 sitting, and I believe Jeffrey took the photo. I 2 was just sitting on a couch upstairs in the 3 bathroom. 4 Q. It wasn't taken by a hidden camera? 5 A. No. No. I was smiling in the picture. 6 Q. And, likewise, in the New York home, did 7 you see anything -- you described a large painting 8 or a photograph that was in the massage room? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you recall any other photos of 11 semi-clad or naked females? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. Anything that you would consider to be 14 child pornography that you saw in the New York home? 15 A. No. 16 Q. And, likewise, in New Mexico? 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q. Do you recall seeing any semi-clad photos 19 in New Mexico at all? 20 A. I do not recall. 21 Q. And the Virgin Islands? 22 A. Yes, in his bathroom, master bathroom. 23 Q. And what do you recall, if anything, about 24 that photo? 25 A. There was a photo of me in there. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 107 of 179 Page 107 1 Q. And, again, was that something that you 2 were okay with? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Jeffrey Epstein never told you that he 5 knowingly had sexual contact with an underaged girl, 6 correct? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: When I asked him if the 9 accusations were true, after I spoke with the 10 police, he said yes, but they lied about their 11 age. 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: 13 Q. How did that conversation come about? 14 A. He asked me if the police had ever spoken 15 to me and I asked him, is it true. 16 Q. And you were talking about underaged 17 girls? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And he said that he had been lied to by 20 those girls? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did he say anything else to you about it? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you ask him anything else about it? 25 A. No. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 108 of 179 Page 108 1 Q. Did you attempt to have any conversation 2 like that with Ghislaine Maxwell? 3 A. No. 4 Q. I saw one press report that said you had 5 met Cate Blanchett or Leonardo DiCaprio? 6 A. I did not meet them, no. When I spoke 7 about them, it was when I was massaging him, and he 8 would get off -- he would be on the phone a lot at 9 that time, and one time he said, Oh, that was 10 Leonardo, or, That was Cate Blanchett, or Bruce 11 Willis. That kind of thing. 12 Q. So name-dropping? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So you had not met Cate Blanchett or 15 Leonardo DiCaprio? 16 A. I have not. 17 Q. Would you remember if you had? 18 A. I would hope I would remember. 19 Q. Did you meet Cameron Diaz? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Bill Clinton? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did you see Bill Clinton on the island? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did you see Bill Clinton in a helicopter MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 109 of 179 Page 109 1 being flown by Ghislaine Maxwell? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever tell you that 4 she had flown Bill Clinton in her helicopter? 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't recall her saying 7 that. 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: 9 Q. Did you ever meet Senator ? 10 A. I don't know what he looks like. I might 11 have. 12 Q. If I told you he was from Maine, would 13 that stick out in your mind? 14 A. It should, but I do not recall meeting 15 him. 16 Q. Do you ever remember meeting Prime 17 Minister Ehud Barak from Israel? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you recall meeting any prime minister? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Any foreign president? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Nobel Prize winners? 24 A. Not to my knowledge. 25 Q. Naomi Campbell? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 110 of 179 Page 110 1 A. No. 2 Q. Al Gore? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Alan Dershowitz? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Les Wexner? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Tom Pritzker? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Kevin Spacey? I may have already asked 11 you, but have you met Kevin Spacey? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you meet Governor Bill Richardson of 14 New Mexico? 15 A. Hmm, I want to say that he was supposed to 16 come to dinner when we were in New Mexico. I don't 17 know if I met him. I believe that he and Ghislaine 18 had dinner separate from myself. 19 Q. Jean Luc Brunel? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You did meet him? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Tell me about that. 24 A. He was just in the house at one time in 25 Palm Beach. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 111 of 179 Page 111 1 Q. Socializing? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you observe him to be with underaged 4 girls? 5 A. I don't recall. 6 Q. Did you give him a massage? 7 A. I don't think I did. I gave a lot of 8 guests massages. I don't remember any of their 9 names. So it could have been any of those people 10 besides the movie stars. 11 Q. You would know? 12 A. Exactly. 13 Q. And did you engage in sexual contact with 14 any of the guests for whom you gave a massage? 15 A. No. That's why he would call me for his 16 guests, because I was not comfortable with the 17 sexual contact. So he still wanted to employ me as 18 a massage therapist, but it was all normal. 19 Q. So this was an actual conversation that 20 you had? 21 A. No, but I -- I noticed. I noticed that I 22 wasn't -- I was massaging him less and less and 23 massaging his guests more. 24 Q. So there was a change in the frequency 25 with which you were giving Jeffrey Epstein massages? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 112 of 179 Page 112 1 A. Right. 2 Q. And an increase corresponding to massages 3 you were giving to guests, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did any of the guests for whom you gave a 6 massage mention that they expected something sexual? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did they ask you to engage in sexual 9 contact and you refused? 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: No. 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: 13 Q. Marvin Minsky? 14 A. I don't know that. 15 Q. George Lucas? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Donald Trump? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever massage Donald Trump? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Sorry, I have to ask, but did you ever 22 have sex with Alan Dershowitz in the back of a 23 limousine with Virginia and Jeffrey present? 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 113 of 179 Page 113 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Do you know who Alan Dershowitz is? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. You would remember -- 5 A. I would remember that. 6 Q. Did you ever see Virginia Roberts with any 7 of the people that I just asked you about? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did Virginia ever talk to you about having 10 been with any of those people? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 BY MS. MENNINGER: 14 Q. Did she tell you that she had met any of 15 those people? 16 A. No. 17 Q. I believe you saw in that police report a 18 reference to a friend of Jeffrey named Glenn and his 19 wife? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. Do you remember them? 22 A. Vaguely. 23 Q. Tell me what you remember. 24 A. I remember they had an apartment in -- on 25 Breakers Row. I went up there and massaged. It may MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 114 of 179 Page 114 1 have been more than once, but I only really remember 2 one time. But there was nothing sexual. 3 Q. Neither with the wife, nor with Glenn? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Do you remember the apartment? 6 A. I only remember that I had to carry my 7 massage table up some stairs. 8 Q. So you actually gave the massage on a 9 massage table? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Does that help you place it in time as to 12 when that might have occurred? In other words -- 13 A. Well -- 14 Q. -- did you get your massage license at 15 some point and a massage table? 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. He bought me my 18 massage table around the time that I went to 19 massage school. So it could have been any time 20 after. If I thought really hard, I could 21 remember when I went to school. But it -- I 22 want to say it's around 2003. 23 BY MS. MENNINGER: 24 Q. Nothing sexual happened with Glenn? 25 A. No. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 115 of 179 Page 115 1 Q. Did Glenn ask you to give him a massage on 2 the floor of the home? 3 A. I don't recall. 4 Q. Did you ever discuss Glenn with Virginia? 5 A. Not to my recollection. 6 Q. Did you ever go to Virginia's home? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you know where she lived? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did she talk about it? 11 A. Not that I remember. 12 Q. Did you see anything in your interactions 13 with Virginia that led you to believe that she was a 14 sex slave? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: No. 17 BY MS. MENNINGER: 18 Q. Did you see anyone forcing her to remain 19 in the home? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did you see her look traumatized at some 22 point? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 116 of 179 Page 116 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Did you see anything that led you to 3 believe Virginia Roberts had been trafficked, 4 sexually trafficked to third parties? 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: No. 7 BY MS. MENNINGER: 8 Q. Did Virginia ever tell you that she had 9 been trafficked? 10 A. No. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: 13 Q. Did you hear anyone direct Virginia 14 Roberts to go have sex with someone? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did Jeffrey ever ask you to go have sex 17 with another person? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to go 20 have sex with another person? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to give 23 a massage to someone else? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 117 of 179 Page 117 1 dress up in any outfit? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did she ever buy you an outfit for you to 4 wear in terms of a sexual profile? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did she tell you what kind of clothes you 7 should buy? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did she direct you to go get Brazilian 10 bikini waxes? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did she direct you to go get your teeth 13 whitened? 14 A. No. 15 MS. MENNINGER: I would like to mark as an 16 exhibit -- I have no recollection what number 17 we're on. Thank you. Exhibit 5. 18 (The referred-to document was marked by 19 the court reporter for Identification as 20 Sjoberg Exhibit 5.) 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: 22 Q. Have you seen this article before? 23 A. It has followed me everywhere. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: I'm sorry. Can I just ask 25 you to put the Bates numbers on the record? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 118 of 179 Page 118 1 MS. MENNINGER: Sure. It's Bates marked 2 Giuffre 1131 through 1138. 3 BY MS. MENNINGER: 4 Q. What do you mean it has followed you 5 everywhere? 6 A. Well, if you Google me, it comes up. 7 Q. I wanted to just ask you a couple of 8 questions. 9 On the third page, towards the bottom, 10 there is a photograph that begins "we had a picture 11 taken," and just to orient you, this is in the 12 discussion around the Prince Andrew meeting you had. 13 Did you meet Prince Andrew any other time 14 besides the time you already described in your 15 testimony? 16 A. No. 17 Q. If you want to take a look at that 18 paragraph before I ask you questions. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. In that paragraph, it describes that 21 Andrew -- Virginia sat on the chair, and then Andrew 22 sat on another chair, and you sat on his lap. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 24 BY MS. MENNINGER: 25 Q. Is that what it says? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 119 of 179 Page 119 1 A. That's what it says. 2 Q. Do you recall telling that to the 3 reporter? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And this was back in 2007 or so? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. As you sit here today, does that make 8 it -- does that refresh your recollection that 9 Virginia was sitting in one chair and you were 10 sitting on another, with Andrew? 11 A. Yeah. If I said that, then I remember it 12 that way. I'm just trying to remember. Whether we 13 were on a couch or a chair, I just remember the 14 boobs part, the hand on the boobs. 15 Q. I understand that part stands out. 16 And I also completely understand if you 17 don't remember things that happened a long time ago. 18 A. Right. 19 Q. I'm just wondering if, having looked at 20 this news article, it refreshes your memory that 21 Virginia was sitting in a different place? 22 A. In a different chair? 23 Q. Does it? 24 A. It does say that. Does it refresh my 25 memory? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 120 of 179 Page 120 1 Q. Okay. That's fine. 2 A. Yeah, sure. 3 Q. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'm just 4 asking. 5 Did Virginia say anything to you about 6 having met Prince Andrew before this time in New 7 York? 8 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: She did not say. 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: 11 Q. Did Prince Andrew say or do anything that 12 led you to believe that he had met Virginia prior to 13 that time? 14 A. I don't recall. 15 Q. Did you ever see Al Gore on the island? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you see his wife, Tipper Gore, on the 18 island? 19 A. No. 20 Q. What is your understanding of what the 21 lawsuit we are here today is about? 22 A. I understand that Ghislaine is calling 23 Virginia a liar, and so Ghislaine is suing Virginia. 24 I'm sorry. Strike that. Reverse it. 25 Right, Virginia is suing Ghislaine for MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 121 of 179 Page 121 1 defamation. 2 Q. And do you know what Virginia said about 3 Ghislaine? 4 A. That Ghislaine recruited her. 5 Q. Do you know anything else that Virginia 6 said about Ghislaine? 7 A. Only what was spoken to me. 8 Q. And I should clarify. Don't tell me 9 anything your lawyer has conveyed to you. 10 A. Exactly. That's all I know. I've met 11 with Virginia once last summer. 12 Q. Okay. Tell me about that. 13 A. She -- there was a moderator between us, 14 like an investigator. And she was in Palm Beach. 15 And it was more about Jeffrey. It was less about 16 Ghislaine. I don't remember specifically about 17 Ghislaine at all. 18 Q. So you met with Virginia and an 19 investigator at the same time? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And they were what, talking to you about 22 Jeffrey in what context? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: Basically, they were trying 25 to find people that would help her get her MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 122 of 179 Page 122 1 story out, because this is when Dershowitz -- 2 Dershowitz was saying nothing was happening and 3 he was calling her a liar. And she was just 4 trying to find people to back up her story. 5 BY MS. MENNINGER: 6 Q. And what did you understand her story to 7 be? Did she tell you? 8 A. That she was recruited to give massages, 9 sexual massages, and have sex with people such as 10 Dershowitz and Andrew. But I knew none of that at 11 the time. 12 Q. Right. Did you tell them anything -- did 13 you tell them during that meeting that you knew of 14 anything about her being recruited to give sex to 15 either Jeffrey or to other people? 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: Can you rephrase? 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: 19 Q. Yes. That wasn't a very good question. 20 What did you say during this meeting with 21 Virginia and her investigator? 22 A. Basically that I believed her, even though 23 I -- she never spoke to me specifically about what 24 was going on; that once I learned everything that 25 happened based on reading the police report, I MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 123 of 179 Page 123 1 believed her side of the story. 2 Q. And did she tell you what her side of the 3 story was? 4 A. You know, just that she wasn't a liar; 5 that, you know, she was there to have sex with men 6 that Jeffrey wanted her to sleep with. 7 Q. Did she tell you in that meeting who she 8 had sex with? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did she name any of the famous people? 11 A. Only Dershowitz came up. 12 Q. Did you two talk about the incident in New 13 York with the puppet? 14 A. I don't recall. 15 Q. And you formed this opinion about whether 16 she was a liar based on things that you've read in 17 the police report? 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 19 THE WITNESS: I formed my opinion based on 20 my experience in the house. 21 BY MS. MENNINGER: 22 Q. Okay. And what experience in the house 23 helped you form your opinion that what Virginia is 24 saying is true? 25 A. You know, Jeffrey being open with me about MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 124 of 179 Page 124 1 what other girls did for him and that I was not one 2 of those girls. 3 He was always trying to recruit me almost 4 in a way that I could be one of them and travel with 5 him and live the life of luxury if I only -- if only 6 I did this. 7 So after five years of learning what was 8 happening, I can look back knowing -- I only knew 9 Virginia for a very short time. Looking back, I can 10 make assumptions about what was required of her. 11 Q. Did she tell you how old she was when she 12 said she started working with Jeffrey? 13 A. She didn't. 14 Q. Did she tell how long she had worked with 15 Jeffrey? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Have you read all the things that have 18 been attributed to her in the press? 19 A. Many of them. 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't know that I've read 22 all of them, but I have read some. 23 BY MS. MENNINGER: 24 Q. In this meeting with Virginia and the 25 investigator, you said Ghislaine Maxwell did not MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 125 of 179 Page 125 1 come up? 2 A. Not that -- not that I recall. 3 Q. Do you know the name of the investigator? 4 A. Valerie Rivera. 5 Q. Have you read the statement that Ghislaine 6 Maxwell issued to the press? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you know what it says? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You said you have read some of Virginia's 11 statements to the press but not all of them? 12 A. I don't know how many there are. I know I 13 read something. I don't know if I read all of them. 14 Q. Have you read her book manuscript? 15 A. No. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 17 BY MS. MENNINGER: 18 Q. Did she tell you that she was writing a 19 book? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did she tell you she was trying to get a 22 book deal? 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 126 of 179 Page 126 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Did she tell you that he hired a ghost 3 rider? 4 A. No. 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 6 BY MS. MENNINGER: 7 Q. Did she tell you that she hired a literary 8 agent? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 BY MS. MENNINGER: 12 Q. Did you speak with John Connelly? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. When did you speak with John Connelly? 15 A. He was first calling me around the time 16 that everything was coming out in 2006. And I 17 didn't say a lot to him, but I did say a few things. 18 And I asked him not to use my name, and he used my 19 name. And then he quoted me as saying things I 20 never said. 21 Q. Do you know to whom he quoted things that 22 you had never said? 23 A. I don't remember the news outlet, no. 24 Q. So it was published somewhere? 25 A. Somewhere on the Internet. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 127 of 179 Page 127 1 Q. Something that you said to John Connelly 2 got twisted? 3 A. Yes. He put words in my mouth. 4 Q. And it was misreported and published? 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: Correct. 7 BY MS. MENNINGER: 8 Q. Have you spoken to him lately? 9 A. No. He called me again at the beginning 10 of last year, around New Year's last year, but I did 11 not return his call. 12 Q. Do you recall what it is he attributed to 13 you falsely? 14 A. It was mostly about how I felt about 15 certain things. I don't remember specifically what 16 he said, but he was giving an opinion for me that I 17 never spoke to him about. 18 Q. And that you did not hold? 19 A. Well, I can't remember what it was. Yeah. 20 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Virginia has 21 lied about any of her experience? 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: I don't know that she has 24 lied. 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 128 of 179 Page 128 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Do you know that she has told the truth? 3 A. As far as I know, she has. 4 Q. Do you know whether the press has 5 accurately reported everything that Virginia has 6 said? 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: 10 Q. Other than John Connelly and the police, 11 who else have you spoken to about your experience? 12 A. Well, the woman from the Daily Mail. Her 13 name is Wendy Leigh. 14 Q. And that's Defendant's Exhibit 5 -- not 15 Defendant's Exhibit, just Exhibit 5, correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Did Wendy Leigh accurately report your 18 statements? 19 A. She did a little bit of embellishment, as 20 well, but the facts are all true. 21 Q. And what parts do you believe are 22 embellished? 23 A. Near the end, when she was doing a 24 summary, when she wrote, "Sure, I had a good time, 25 but I also think it damaged me a bit." I don't MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 129 of 179 Page 129 1 recall saying that. 2 And there's another part in here where she 3 said I said that I made a deal with the devil, which 4 I never would have said that. The words she used. 5 Q. On page 2 of 8, it's about -- it's about 6 even with the hem of your skirt. 7 A. "I made a pack with the devil in exchange 8 for excitement and glamour. I was only a college 9 student. I was hard-up and foolish." 10 That I never said, any of that. I was a 11 college student, that's true. "Hard-up and 12 foolish," I would have never called myself foolish. 13 Q. Were you paid any money for this 14 interview? 15 A. I was paid $1,500. 16 Q. And how long did the interview last? 17 A. A couple of hours. 18 Q. Where did it take place? 19 A. At Cafe Boulud in the Brazilian Court 20 Hotel in Palm Beach. 21 Q. Who else besides Wendy Leigh and John 22 Connelly and the police -- 23 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 24 BY MS. MENNINGER: 25 Q. -- and Virginia and the investigator -- MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 130 of 179 Page 130 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 2 BY MS. MENNINGER: 3 Q. -- did you talk to about your experience? 4 A. Family and friends. 5 Q. Did you speak to any other reporters? 6 A. I had other reporters calling me. I 7 avoided almost all of the calls. I had someone 8 coming at me, stalking me. I do not know who he 9 was. He offered me $25,000 to give a story, and I 10 turned him down. 11 Q. Who? 12 A. He showed up in my work multiple times. 13 Q. There were other stories printed in the 14 Daily Mail, not by Wendy Leigh, later. 15 Did you see any of those stories? I'm 16 sorry. Let me be a little clearer. That attributed 17 comments to you. 18 A. I don't recall specifically, but I feel 19 like I stayed on top of it, and I wasn't surprised 20 when my name was brought up. 21 Q. Do you recall giving another interview? 22 A. No, never. 23 Q. Do you recall anything that was printed 24 other than the John Connelly thing that you believe 25 to be inaccurate? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 131 of 179 Page 131 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was there anybody else present when you 3 were interviewing with Wendy Leigh? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Was she recording it on a recorder? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Have you ever heard that recording? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you know whether the police were 10 recording their interview with you? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Have you ever heard that recording? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did you ever receive notification that you 15 were named as a victim in any of Jeffrey Epstein's 16 criminal cases? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Other than the $1,500 from Wendy Leigh, 19 did you receive any other money for making any 20 statements? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you give an interview to Virginia's 23 attorneys? 24 A. Yes. Right? 25 MS. McCAWLEY: You can say yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 132 of 179 Page 132 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. When was that? 3 A. Two weeks ago, roughly. 4 Q. And who was present during that meeting? 5 A. My lawyer and several others. 6 Q. Several other what? 7 A. Lawyers. I don't know. I don't know who 8 they all are. 9 Q. So Ms. McCawley you recall being there? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Ms. Schultz you recall being there? 12 A. No. I didn't learn it, no. You weren't 13 there. 14 Q. Brad Edwards? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Paul Cassell? 17 A. Maybe. I don't remember. 18 Q. And was that interview recorded? 19 A. I don't know. It may have been. I don't 20 remember. 21 Q. Did anyone ask your permission to record 22 it? 23 A. Maybe. I don't recall. 24 Q. Were you shown any documents during that 25 meeting? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 133 of 179 Page 133 1 A. Flight logs. 2 Q. Any other documents? 3 A. No. 4 Q. What did Ms. McCawley or Mr. Edwards or 5 any of the other lawyers say to you about Ghislaine 6 Maxwell? 7 A. They just asked impressions. They never 8 said anything about her. 9 Q. Were you shown a copy of any report that 10 came out of that interview? 11 A. Which interview? 12 Q. The one with the -- Virginia's attorneys. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 14 THE WITNESS: No. 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: 16 Q. You testified earlier about an incident 17 with a camera that Ghislaine Maxwell had given you. 18 I want to ask you some questions about that. 19 A. Sure. 20 Q. Do you know when that was? 21 A. That was in 2002. 22 Q. And why does that date stick out? 23 A. Because I was living -- where I was living 24 specifically and where I had the phone call. 25 Q. Tell me what you remember about the MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 134 of 179 Page 134 1 conversation. 2 A. I had been over to her house prior 3 massaging Jeffrey. And I got a phone call from her, 4 and she told me she had a camera for me for my 5 photography class, but yet, she couldn't give it to 6 me yet because during the massage I didn't finish my 7 job and she had to finish it for me. 8 Q. Did she say what she meant? 9 A. No, but I knew. 10 Q. Was there any other time that you had 11 discussed with her finishing your job? 12 A. Not that I recall. 13 Q. Any other time you just recall discussing 14 with her anything about your sexual contact with 15 Jeffrey? 16 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: No. 18 BY MS. MENNINGER: 19 Q. Did she give you the camera? 20 A. I did get the camera. 21 Q. Okay. When did she give you the camera? 22 A. I guess the next time I went to the house. 23 Q. What was said at that time? 24 A. I honestly don't know that she handed it 25 to me. I remember it being there for me. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 135 of 179 Page 135 1 Q. What kind of camera was it? 2 A. A Canon Rebel 35-millimeter. 3 Q. Do you still have it? 4 A. I do not. No one uses 35-millimeter 5 anymore. 6 Q. What's that? 7 A. No one uses 35-millimeter. 8 Q. Back to the cell phone conversation. 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Was it your birthday? 11 A. It was just I was taking a photography 12 class and I needed a camera. 13 Q. Do you know her to be a photographer? 14 A. Not a professional, but I knew she was 15 interested in photography. 16 Q. Did you see her with cameras? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you see her taking photographs of nude 19 people? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did she ever ask you to take a photograph 22 of you semi-clad or naked? 23 A. Did she ever ask to take a photo of me? 24 Q. Semi-clad or naked. 25 A. No. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 136 of 179 Page 136 1 Q. Did she ever ask to take a photograph of 2 you at any point? 3 A. I don't remember. 4 Q. Did you tell anyone else about this 5 conversation: You couldn't give it to me now 6 because I hadn't finished my job? 7 A. No. 8 MS. MENNINGER: I think I'm going to 9 reserve the rest of my time for recross, so you 10 all, I guess, can take a break. 11 MR. LOUIS: Can I have one second? 12 MS. MENNINGER: Sure. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: We can go off the record? 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 15 12:09. 16 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after 17 which the following proceedings were held:) 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 12:10. 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: 20 Q. Sorry, just a couple of more questions. 21 It sounds like maybe there was an 22 additional telephone conference that one might 23 construe as a meeting with attorneys; is that true? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. All right. Tell me about that. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 137 of 179 Page 137 1 A. They just wanted to -- we had met prior, 2 and they just wanted to clarify a few things and ask 3 a few more questions. 4 Q. Okay. What did they clarify? 5 A. Any other specific times that I had, you 6 know, seen Ghislaine naked, or if I had, you know, 7 had any sexual massages with her, any type of 8 questions like that. 9 Q. Okay. And what did you tell them about 10 having any sexual massages with Ghislaine? 11 A. That I was not asked to do -- to perform 12 anything with her. 13 Q. And you did not? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. And what did you tell them about specific 16 times of seeing Ghislaine Maxwell naked? 17 A. Only when she would swim or get a massage. 18 Q. And that's swimming -- you mentioned 19 earlier skinny-dipping? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And I think you said perhaps some other 22 time that you saw her jump off a dock and swim -- 23 A. Correct, yes. 24 Q. -- in the nude? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 138 of 179 Page 138 1 Q. And then you saw her under a towel during 2 massages? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Is there any other time that you recall 5 seeing Ghislaine Maxwell naked? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Is there anything else about that 8 telephone conference with the attorneys to clarify 9 that you recall, the topics? 10 A. No. 11 MS. MENNINGER: All right. Thank you. I 12 think we can go off the record now. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 14 12:12. 15 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken, 16 after which the following proceedings were 17 held:) 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 12:54. 19 F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N 20 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 21 Q. Johanna, I'm going to ask you a couple of 22 more just follow-up questions. 23 When Laura was talking to you, she 24 mentioned some names of famous people that you -- 25 most of which you had not met. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 139 of 179 Page 139 1 Did you ever meet anybody famous when you 2 were with Jeffrey? 3 A. I met Michael Jackson. 4 Q. Oh, really? And where was that? 5 A. At his house in Palm Beach. At Jeffrey's 6 house in Palm Beach. 7 Q. Did you massage him? 8 A. I did not. 9 Q. Anybody else you remember? I know you 10 mentioned David Copperfield earlier. Anybody else? 11 A. No, I'd remember that. 12 Q. I believe you also testified that you had 13 never had a massage before you started working with 14 Jeffrey and Ghislaine; is that correct? 15 A. I don't recall having a massage before 16 then. 17 Q. And I think you said on the first day, 18 when you were doing the clerical work, Maxwell 19 mentioned that you might be able to get a massage; 20 is that correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you tell Maxwell that you had never 23 had a massage at that point? 24 A. I don't remember. 25 Q. Did you remember telling Jeffrey that you MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 140 of 179 Page 140 1 had never had a massage? 2 A. No. 3 Q. And then you were talking about the 4 massage -- the first massage when you were being in 5 the room with Jeffrey and Emmy? 6 A. Uh-huh. 7 Q. And I know you said Emmy was naked or took 8 off her clothes at some point? 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. And then laid on the table. 11 And then you changed positions with her; 12 is that what happened? 13 A. Yes. I don't remember the sequence, but 14 at one point she was, I was, and Jeffrey was. 15 Q. And in the -- in the time when there was 16 changeover, for example, when you're on the table 17 and Emmy is not on the table and Jeffrey is not on 18 the table, did Emmy at that point remain naked or 19 did she actually stop and get dressed and continue 20 massaging? 21 A. I don't recall her getting dressed, but I 22 would probably remember if she massaged naked. 23 Q. Do you know if Jeffrey remained naked 24 during that massage? 25 A. He was never, like, naked standing up. He MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 141 of 179 Page 141 1 always covered himself with a towel. 2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to 3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever 4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Yes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in 9 response to that? 10 A. I did bring one girl named -- 11 no. -- it was some girl named 12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I 13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over; 14 however, they never called her to come. 15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one 16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a 17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And what did she do? 20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session, 21 twice. 22 Q. Twice. 23 Did anything sexual in nature happen 24 during the session? 25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 142 of 179 Page 142 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it 2 down. 3 Q. Anything else? 4 A. That was the conversation that he had told 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the 6 girl by the pool. 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls 9 around? 10 A. She implied that, yes. 11 Q. In what way? 12 A. Sexually. 13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you 16 also previously stated that during the camera 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not 18 finishing the job. 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that 24 question. 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 143 of 179 Page 143 1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with 2 respect to the camera? 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not 5 brought him to orgasm. 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging 9 Jeffrey? 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: I can answer? 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that 14 is what was expected of me. 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. 20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was 21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting 22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up, 23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow 24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he 25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 144 of 179 Page 144 1 landing. 2 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 3 Q. Do you recall witnessing any sexual acts 4 on the plane? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did Emmy ever talk to you about performing 7 sexual acts on the plane? 8 A. No. 9 Q. We looked earlier at the police report, 10 and I just want to clarify, you identified some 11 areas where there were discrepancies in that report. 12 And you can take another look at it if you 13 want, but other than the discrepancies you pointed 14 out, is that a recollection of what you remember 15 telling the detective? 16 A. Yes. 17 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, outside the 18 scope of cross. 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 20 Q. You mentioned that there was a time when 21 you noticed that Maxwell was around a little bit 22 less? 23 A. Uh-huh. 24 Q. And I believe you said that was during the 25 middle of the time you were with Jeffrey. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 145 of 179 Page 145 1 Do you remember approximately when that 2 was year-wise? 3 A. I don't. I would say it was probably 4 sometime between 2003 and 2004. 5 Q. And what made you think that? 6 A. I just saw her less and less at the house. 7 Q. Were you there more at the house during 8 that time period? 9 A. No, not necessarily. It's just at the 10 beginning, she was around a lot. And then I would 11 see her occasionally without him. The one time we 12 spent a few days together in 2006, she wasn't there 13 at all. 14 Q. So you saw her in the -- is it fair to say 15 that you saw her in the 2005 and 2006 time frame? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Then we were talking about the photography 18 earlier and about the photographs. 19 Did Maxwell ever ask you to take nude 20 photos of yourself for Jeffrey? 21 A. She asked me to take photos of myself for 22 Jeffrey, yes. 23 Q. And did you do that? 24 A. I did not. 25 Q. And the photos that were around that were MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 146 of 179 Page 146 1 in the bathroom, that you mentioned a couple of 2 times places that there were photos of you, who took 3 those? 4 A. He did. 5 Q. And when we were talking about the Palm 6 Beach house and you were describing an area where 7 there were just a lot of photographs, is it fair to 8 say that there could have been nude photographs 9 amongst those photos that you saw? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And earlier you testified that you don't 12 have knowledge of what happens behind closed doors, 13 but you also said that Jeffrey had told you what 14 other girls did for him and that he wanted you to do 15 those things for him. 16 Is it fair to say that you knew that other 17 girls were performing sexual acts? 18 A. Yes. 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation, 20 form. 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 22 Q. And I know you mentioned previously that 23 your relationship and the interaction with him 24 progressed over time. 25 Did there come a time when you were MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 147 of 179 Page 147 1 expected to have sexual intercourse with Jeffrey? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And when was that? 4 A. 2005. 5 MS. McCAWLEY: That's it. I just do want 6 to also put on the record that we're 7 designating the testimony as confidential under 8 the protective order. 9 F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N 10 BY MS. MENNINGER: 11 Q. Okay. You just testified that you have 12 knowledge -- you had knowledge that -- of what 13 Jeffrey was doing behind closed doors with other 14 girls. Was that your testimony? 15 A. Based on what he had told me. 16 Q. Okay. So Jeffrey told you things that he 17 had done with other girls? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You did not observe any of those things? 20 A. No. 21 Q. You did not talk to any of those girls 22 about what they had done with Jeffrey behind closed 23 doors? 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 148 of 179 Page 148 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Correct? 3 A. No. Correct. 4 Q. The only source of knowledge you have is 5 based on what Jeffrey told you he had done with 6 other girls? 7 A. Correct. 8 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: 10 Q. You said that there were possibly nude 11 photos amongst the other photos that you saw on 12 various walls at the Palm Beach house, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. None of them stood out to you? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. None of them appeared pornographic? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You didn't see any fully frontally nude 19 photographs, correct? 20 A. No, not that I recall. 21 Q. And you don't recall seeing any girls that 22 appeared to be underaged, correct? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You said Ghislaine asked you to take 25 photos of yourself for Jeffrey, correct? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 149 of 179 Page 149 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Did she ask you to take a nude photograph 3 of yourself or just a photograph of yourself? 4 A. A nude photograph of myself. 5 Q. What exactly did she say to you? 6 A. I don't remember exactly, but I know that 7 I never felt comfortable. I would have felt fine 8 taking photos of myself, my face, but I knew I was 9 never comfortable with it because I had to take 10 photos of my body. And I also didn't know how to 11 take a photo from standing behind. You have to have 12 someone else involved. 13 Q. That's my question. How would you take a 14 nude photograph of yourself? 15 A. Exactly. Someone else would have to do 16 it. 17 Q. Do you recall any of the particulars of 18 what she said to you that led you to believe she 19 wanted you to do that? 20 A. No, just asking for the photos. 21 Q. Do you know when in your time there? 22 A. It was near the beginning, because that's 23 when I was interested in the photography. 24 Q. Was it in the context of your discussion 25 of your photography class? MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 150 of 179 Page 150 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was it in the context of anything? 3 A. About the camera that she had bought for 4 me. 5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the 6 camera that she bought for you and taking 7 photographs of you? 8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some 9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of 10 myself. 11 Q. What did you say? 12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never 13 ended up following through. I think I tried once. 14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct? 15 A. Exactly. 16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified 17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said 18 were implied to you. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure 21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that 24 led you to believe that was her implication? 25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 151 of 179 Page 151 1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's 2 why there were other girls around. 3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any 4 other girls? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists? 9 A. Not specifically. 10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house 11 that were not massage therapists, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Nadia is another person that was around, 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. There were other people he traveled with? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: 20 Q. Correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Other girls? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Adults? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 152 of 179 Page 152 1 Q. When I say "girl," I really mean women, 2 correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. There were other women around who hung out 5 with Jeffrey, and you don't know what they did 6 behind closed doors, correct? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. So when you heard the implication that she 9 wanted other girls around to take the pressure off 10 of her sexually, in your mind that meant other adult 11 women that he had in his life, correct? 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 13 THE WITNESS: Correct, doing what I was 14 expected to do in a massage, you know. 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: 16 Q. Ghislaine didn't have anything to do with 17 you bringing this woman over for a physical workout 18 with Jeffrey, correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. She asked you to bring another girl to 21 be -- to perform massages at the home? 22 A. Yes. Well, she was always asking if I 23 knew anyone else. And so I brought this one girl 24 that I didn't even know I worked with her at a 25 restaurant. So I didn't care what she thought of me MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 153 of 179 Page 153 1 if anything happened. And so -- but it never turned 2 into anything. 3 Q. She was an adult? 4 A. She was an adult. 5 Q. Working at a restaurant with you? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What restaurant was that? 8 A. It's a restaurant that's closed. It's 9 called . 10 Q. You were asked about the famous people. 11 You said you met Michael Jackson? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. But you did not give him a massage? 14 A. No. 15 Q. There were other famous people, perhaps, 16 who were around Jeffrey's home that you didn't meet, 17 correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts has 20 told the truth about the age she was when she met 21 Ghislaine Maxwell? 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. Exceeds the 23 scope of cross. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't have any idea what 25 she told them in terms of her age. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 154 of 179 Page 154 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Do you know if Virginia Roberts is telling 3 the truth about whether she spent her sweet 16th 4 birthday with Jeffrey and Ghislaine Maxwell? 5 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about 7 that. 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: 9 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts is 10 telling the truth about whether Ghislaine Maxwell 11 sexually assaulted her on her first day on the job? 12 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 13 THE WITNESS: I have not knowledge of 14 that. 15 BY MS. MENNINGER: 16 Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether 17 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about 18 Virginia -- excuse me -- about Ghislaine Maxwell 19 forcing Virginia Roberts to "go down" on her? 20 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 21 THE WITNESS: No knowledge. 22 BY MS. MENNINGER: 23 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether 24 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about whether 25 Ghislaine Maxwell forced her to participate in MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 155 of 179 Page 155 1 orgies with other women? 2 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 3 THE WITNESS: No. 4 BY MS. MENNINGER: 5 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether 6 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about whether 7 Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with 8 Prince Andrew? 9 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: No. Only based on what I've 11 read in the media. 12 BY MS. MENNINGER: 13 Q. And Alan Dershowitz? 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 15 THE WITNESS: The same. 16 BY MS. MENNINGER: 17 Q. Prime ministers? 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 19 THE WITNESS: No. 20 BY MS. MENNINGER: 21 Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether 22 Virginia Roberts is telling the truth about foreign 23 presidents? 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: No knowledge. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 156 of 179 Page 156 1 BY MS. MENNINGER: 2 Q. Do you know whether Virginia Roberts is 3 telling the truth about Ghislaine Maxwell forcing 4 her to participate in an orgy with Prince Andrew and 5 other underaged girls on the island? 6 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: No knowledge. 8 BY MS. MENNINGER: 9 Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell ever ask you to have 10 her baby? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 MS. MENNINGER: No further questions. 14 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you for your time. 15 THE WITNESS: We are done. 16 MS. McCAWLEY: We are off the record. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:11. This 18 concludes the video deposition. Off the 19 record. 20 (Thereupon, the taking of the deposition 21 was concluded at 1:11 p.m.) 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 157 of 179 Page 157 1 AFFIDAVIT 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ) 3 4 I, , being first 5 duly sworn, do hereby acknowledge that I did read a true and certified copy of my deposition 6 which was taken in the case of GIUFFRE V. MAXWELL, taken on the 18th day of May, 2016, 7 and the corrections I desire to make are as indicated on the attached Errata Sheet. 8 9 CERTIFICATE 10 11 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ) 12 13 Before me personally appeared 14 ________________________________________, to me well known / known to me to be the 15 person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and 16 before me that he executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein 17 expressed. 18 19 Witness my hand and official seal, this ______ day of ________________, _____. 20 21 22 __________________________ (Notary Public) 23 24 My Commission Expires: 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 158 of 179 Page 158 1 ERRATA SHEET 2 PAGE LINE REMARKS 3 ____________________________________________________ 4 ____________________________________________________ 5 ____________________________________________________ 6 ____________________________________________________ 7 ____________________________________________________ 8 ____________________________________________________ 9 ____________________________________________________ 10 ____________________________________________________ 11 ____________________________________________________ 12 ____________________________________________________ 13 ____________________________________________________ 14 ____________________________________________________ 15 ____________________________________________________ 16 ____________________________________________________ 17 ____________________________________________________ 18 ____________________________________________________ 19 ____________________________________________________ 20 ____________________________________________________ 21 __________________________ 22 Signature of Witness ___________________________ 23 (Notary Public) 24 Dated this _________ day of ___________, __________. MY Commission Expires: _____________ 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 159 of 179 Page 159 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 4 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify 6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me 7 and was duly sworn. 8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 9 18th day of May, 2016. 10 11 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 12 Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. FF911443 13 Expires: 2/16/21 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 160 of 179 Page 160 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) : ss 4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 5 I, KELLI ANN WILLIS, a Registered 6 Professional, Certified Realtime Reporter and 7 Notary Public within and for The State of 8 Florida, do hereby certify: 9 That JOHANNA SJOBERG, the witness whose 10 deposition is hereinbefore set forth was duly 11 sworn by me and that such Deposition is a true 12 record of the testimony given by the witness. 13 I further certify that I am not related 14 to any of the parties to this action by blood 15 or marriage, and that I am in no way interested 16 in the outcome of this matter. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 18 my hand this 18th day of May, 2016. 19 20 __________________________ KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 161 of 179 Page 1 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 162 of 179 Page 2 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 163 of 179 Page 3 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 164 of 179 Page 4 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 165 of 179 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 166 of 179 Page 6 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 167 of 179 Page 7 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 168 of 179 Page 8 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 169 of 179 Page 9 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 170 of 179 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 171 of 179 Page 11 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 172 of 179 Page 12 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 173 of 179 Page 13 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 174 of 179 Page 14 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 175 of 179 Page 15 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 176 of 179 Page 16 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 177 of 179 Page 17 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 178 of 179 Page 18 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-12 Filed 01/03/24 Page 179 of 179 EXHIBIT 7 PART 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 45 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- )ate: 7 / 19/06 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 45 Program: CMS301L -----------~------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ase No. . . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) photographed by CSI Pavlik and then videotaped by myself. The search was concluded at approximately 3:05 p.m. whereupon Detective Recarey and I were the last two officers in the house. Upon securing the residence we met with the gentleman who identified himself to Detective Recarey as the lawyer for the defendant and he was informed that the residence was secured and that copies of the inventory return had been left on the first floor table of the personal assistant's office. Detective Recarey and I returned to Police Headquarters and secured for the day. ***************************NARRATIVE # 14 ************************** ~ Reported By: DAWSON, MICHAEL C. 11/07/05 Entered By.; ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/07/05 on October 2 0, 2 005 , I assisted Defective Recarey in the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, 33480. Upon the announcement of the search warrant , immediate contact was made with three white males who came out of the house or surrounding structures. Those males were identified as Janusz Banasiak, Daniel Estes, and Mark Zeff. As other members of the police department cleared the home, I kept watch over these three males. Once the house was cleared, those males were turned over to Detective Reca:rey . Detective Dicks and I were assigned to assist in the search of the main house, the cabana and the servant's quarters. We started in the garage . All areas of the garage were searched to include four vehicles . These vehicles were three black Mercedes Benz cars registered to Jeffrey Epstein. The fourth vehicle was a Harley Davidson motorcycle, green in color, registered to Jeffrey Epstein . Nothing was recovered from the garage. A towel closet and pantry located off the kitchen were searched and yielded negative results . Th~ kitchen was searched and taken into evidence was a phone message book: that was located near a house phone. North of the kitchen was an office room which contained a computer. The room had a closet that contained a locked gun locker . The combination was entered by Banasiak in the presence of Sgt. Frick and the safe was opened. Items were taken from the room. See the completed property receipt for a detailed list. A green bathroom located on the first floor was searched and nothing was taken. A closet located just west of the green bathroom was searched. Two massage tables were located in the closet along with a photo of a nude GIUFFRE000046 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 45 )ate : 7 /1 9 /06 rime: 1 5: 0 1: 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 46 Program: CMS301L ·------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~a se No. . 1 - 05-000368 female from the waist up . (Continued) See the property receipt for details. I searched two bedrooms and their adjoining bathrooms, which were located on the second floor on the East side of the house. In the Northeast bedroom closet I found adult sex toys called Twin Torpedoes. Soap made in the shape of a penis and vagina were also found in these upstair bedrooms .. See the property receipt for details . I searched the pool cabana located on the South side of the pool . Photos were taken from the wall . See the property receipt for details. I assisted in the search of Banasiak ' s living quarters. Numerous CDs along with a message book was seized. See the property receipt for details . ** *************************NARRATIVE # 15 ************************** !\ Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/08 / 05 Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/08 / 05 On November 1 , 2005, I was contacted by Atty . Gus Fronstin , who advised he was willing to assist with the investigation. Atty. Fronstin advised he would try to have his client , Jeffrey Epstein available to be interviewed. I explained I would be interested in conducting an interview with his client as well as other employees that are employed within the house. Atty. Fronstin advised he would return my call once he received confirmation on the interviews. On November 6 , 2005, I attempted contact with at her residence. I left a business card for her to return my call. Upon returning to the police department , I had received a t elephone call from I : ■ I returned her call at~ and spoke with She made arrangements to respono to the station to provide an interview. At approximately 3:30 pm, she arrived at the Palm Beach Police Stati on with her boyfriend . Her boyfriend was allowed to sit in the lobby area while Ms ... ■■111,was interviewed. I took Ms•••► to the Detective Bureau Interview room. I closed the door for privacy and explained to her that I appreciated her coming to the police station for the interview. During the sworn taped statement, she advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein s house one time. Appro~i~~~e;~ t~~t~~~t~:ra~~~~~~e~a~ a~~~~a~~:~ ~rii~kg!~~~~ advised she was in need to make some quick cash to make the rent that month . She agreed to go to the house. She had been told by .... that the massage would have to be done in her underwear . Sne advised•••drove with her and brought her into the house. They walked into the kitchen area and took the stairs upstairs. further stated she was b r ought into a master bedroom area. She advised she recalled seeing portraits of naked women throughout the room. A massage table was already out near the sauna/shower area in the master bedroom . Epstein entered the room wearing only a towel and GIUFFRE00004 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 45 ------ ------- --------------- ----- ----- ---------------------- --------- --- ----- 1ate: 7/19 /06 'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 4 7 Program: CMS301L -------------------------------------------------------- --- --- ---------------- ·ase No. . . : 1-05- 000368 (Continued) introduced himself as Jeff. ■■•advised she recalled she and removed their clothing down to their panties, Epstein lay on his stomach area and they provided a massage on his legs and feet area. I asked if she had any formal massage training and she replied no. advised she was topless and the panties she wore were the boy shorts lace panties. She and41••~continued the massage until the last ten minutes of the massage, Epstein, told•• tto leave the room so that1111■■■ could finish the massage. got dressed and Epstein turned over onto his back. Epstein then removed the towel, which had been around his waist. Epstein laid there naked and requested that ••••rub his chest area. stated as she did this, Epstein, began masturbating as she rubbed his chest: ••••stated he pulled down her boy short panties and he produced a large white vibrator with a large head. She stated it was within a drawer in bis master bathroom. He rubbed the vibrator on her vagina area. ••■•advised he never penetrated her vagina with the vibrator. He continued to rub her vagina with the vibrator as he continued to masturbate. ••••stated she was very uncomfortable during the incident but knew it was almost over . Epstein climaxed and started to remove himself from the table. He wiped himself with the towel he had on previously and went into the shower area. -■■ltgot dressed and met with====in the kitchen area. Epstein came into the kitchen and provided $200.00 for bringing•lllil-~and paid $200.00 to for providing the massage. ■■-was told to leave her telephone number with Sarah, his assistant for future contact. •••provided her cellular telephone number for future contact . was asked if she was recently contacted about this investigation by anyone from the Epstein organization . She replied she was called but it was for work. She stated she was called by Sarah for her to return to work for Epstein. •• •stated work is the term used by Sarah to provide the massage in underwear. ■■•advised she declined, as she was not comfortable in providing that type of work. The interview was concluded and the videotape was placed into evidence. Investigation Continues . . ~************************* N ARRATI V E # 16 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 11/10/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/10/05 On November 7, 2005, I made telephone contact with who advised she would be able to meet with me at her home. Det. Sandman and I traveled to her home in'll •tl■■ and made contact with During a sworn taped statement, stated she met Jeffrey Epstein through Haley Robson. Robson would approach females who wished to work for him. ••■■~ stated she was asked to.work for him but declined. ■■■9explained that work means give massages. She was asked about any formal training in providing massages to which she said no. ■■■i.,said she accompanied Robson and other females GIUFFRE000048 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 45 ---------- -- ----- --------------- ------------------------- ----------------- - >ate : 7 / 1 9 / 0 6 'ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 48 Program: CMS301L ----------------- --------- -------------------- ----------- ------------------ 'ase No ... . : 1-05- 000 368 (Continued ) who were taken to Epstein s house to provide massages. further stated she had been to the house appJoxima-el 4 .or 5 times in the past year. She accompanied Robson withl I I 3 ••••·••• the 14-year-old victim, and . Eacn time the girls were taken over, they were previously told they would have to provide a massage, possibly naked. It was also told that should Epstein require them to do anything extra and they were not comfortable just -to tell him and he would stop. ••■•• stated Robson received $200.00 for each girl she brought over to massage Jeffrey Epstein. When I asked which girl appeared to be the youngest , she replied, the victim, as she stated she was fifteen years old at the most; she looked really young. 111•■■ further stated each time she went to the house, she sat in the kitchen and waited with Robson until the massage was over. She further stated that the cook would make lunch or a snack for them as they waited. I asked her if there was anything that caught her attention within the home . stated there were a lot of naked girls in photographs throughout the house. The interview was concluded and the tape was turned into evidence. Investigation Continues . . **************************NARRATI V E # 17 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/10/os Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/10/05 Det. Dawson and I attempted contact with in I left my business card at her front door. Ms returned my call and arranged a meeting with me at the Palm Beach Police Department for November 8, 2005. At approximately 2:00pm, arrived at the Palm Beach Police Department. She was brought into the interview room and the door was closed for privacy. She was told that I appreciated her coming to the police station for questioning regarding an on going investigation. She was told that I was investigating a crime involving Jeffrey Epstein and knew, based on the investigation, that she had encounters with him in the past . During a sworn taped statement, ..... stated she had met Epstein approximately two years ago. She was first introduced to Epstein by Haley Robson. Robson approached her about working for Epstein and providing a massage to him for $200.00. The arrangements were made and as Robson could not take her the day the arrangements were made, ■ took ■••• ••• also attended and was familiar with Epstein. recalled she was brought there and entered through the back kitchen door. She had met with an assistant Sarah and another assistant Adrianna. Sarah brought her upstairs as she observed several photographs of naked females throughout the house. stated Epstein came in the room, wearing only a towel, and laid on the table. ••■■tstated he picked out the oils he wanted her to use and requested she remove her clothing to provide the massage. stated that on the first massage she provided she did not remove her GIUFFRE000049 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 45 --------------------------------------------------~---------------------- ---- -- Ja t e : 7 / 19 / o 6 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 49 Program: CMS301L ---------------------------------------· --------------------------------------- :::ase No. . : 1-05- 000368 (Continued ) clothing. 'W■■■t stated she had returned several times after that. Each time she returned more things happened. •••• stated that the same thing would happen . Epstein would walk into the master bedroom/bathroom area wearing only a towel. He would masturbate as she provided a massage. •••• stated she was unsure if he climaxed as he masturbated under the towel . Additionally she never looked blow his waist. She claimed that Epstein would convince her to remove her clothes. She eventually removed her clothes and stayed in her thong panties. On occasion, Epstein would use a massager/vibrator, which she described as white in color with a large head, on her. Every time she provided a massage he would masturbate. added she has no formal training in providing a massage. tated she brought two females during her visits to provide massages. stated she brought.a girl named and . from IS I . ~stated she received $200.00 for each girl she brought. Additionally, G'td1111 was given $200 . 00 for taking her in the very beginning . The interview was concluded and the tape was placed into evidence. Investigation continues . . . ~**** ************** ********NARRATI V E # 18 ************************** .\ Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1 1/13 /0 5 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11 / 14 /0 5 On November 8 , 2005 , I made telephone contact with W/F , at her residence . ■■•responded to the police station for an interview reference an ongoing investigation . At approximately 2:30 pm, she arrived at the Palm Beach Police Station and was brought into the interview room for the interview. The door was closed for privacy and she was told that I appreciated her cooperation in this case. During a sworn taped statement,•• ~stated she had met Jeffrey Epstein approximately one year ago . She was approached by a subject known to her as q ■ ••t had asked her if she wanted to make money providing massaqes to E2stein. ad heard that several girls from I ■ were doing this and_ making money . She agreed and was taken to the house by had introduced her to Sarah and Epstein and brought her upstairs to a master bedroom and Master bathroom where a massage table was prepared and the proper oils were taken out . •••~eft the room and waited downstairs for••·• stated Epstein entered the room wearing a towel and she provided a massage wearing only her thong panties. advised Epstein had masturbated every time she provided a massage. She stated Epstein continued to masturbate until he climaxed; once that occurred the massage was over. She felt the whole situation was weird but she advised she was paid $200.00 for providing the massage. She also stated:il-•received $200.00 for bring4••to Epstein . stated she had gone a total of 15 times to his residence to provide a massage and things had escalated from just providing a GJUFFRE000050 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7/19/06 Time: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 50 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ::a s e No .. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued ) massage . Epstein began touching her on her buttocks and grabbed her closer to him as he masturbated . Epstein also grabbed her breasts and fondled her breast with his hands as she provided the massage. stated on one occasion, he offered extra monies to have vaginal intercourse. She stated this all occurred on the massage table. • stated Epstein penetrated her vagina with his penis and began having intercourse with her until he reached the point of climax. Epstein removed his penis from her vagina and climaxed onto the massage table. -freceived $3S0.00 for her massage. I asked her if she had any formal training in providing massages,a•lilllstated she did not . continued to state on one other occasion, Epstein introduced his assistant, Nada , into the massage. Nada was brought into room with to provide a massage. Epstein had them kiss and fondle each other around the breasts and buttocks as they provided a massage to Epstein. Epstein, watched and masturbated as this occurred . On other occasions, Epstein introduced the large white vibrator/massager during the massage. Epstein stroked the vibrator/massager on vagina as she provided the massage. at the house, was 2005. ••• stated She provided the name). It should stated the last time she spoke with anyone with Sarah during the weekend of October 2 or 3, she had brought two 5eople to the Epstein house. names of 6§ and•■• (unknown last noted,••1111--had been previously identified as been previously interviewed. The interview was concluded videotape was placed into evidence via the locker system. and had and the On November 9, 2005, Sgt Frick and I traveled to 6791 Fairway Lakes Drive in Boynton Beach, Florida in hopes to interview Juan Alessi, the former houseman of Epstein's home. As no one was home, a business card was left for him to return my call . We then traveled to 11349 SW 86th Lane in Miami in hopes to interview Alfredo Rodriguez 1 a former house man of Epstein. We did not locate them at home. I left a business card for him to return my call . We , .. then traveled to••• ]t:,and met with Dean of Students, Mr . , We requested to speak with ••■■M••• C was re interviewed, as she still was in possession of the rental car that Epstein had acquired for her. ■ stated that Sarah, Epstein's assistant, had called her on her cellular telephone and informed her that rental was extended for her. Sarah stated she had paid an additional $625 . 00 for her to keep the rental an extra month. was asked if she had any additional contact with either Epstein or anyone from his organization. •••~stated she did not, other than the telephone call informing her that she could keep the car for an extra month. ••• did not provide any additional information. On November 10, 2005 , at approximately 9:47 am, Alfredo Rodriguez had telephoned reference my business card found on his door . Rodriguez stated he had worked with Epstein for approximately six months after GIUFFRE0000S l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 45 ---~------------------ --- ------------------------------------- -- -------------- >ate: 7 / 19/06 'ime: 15 : O 1: 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 51 Program: CMS301L -----~-------- .- -------- ---------------------------------------------------- -- 'ase No" . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) the previous houseman left . Rodriguez stated that it was his responsibility to keep the identity of the masseuses private. Mr. Epstein had a massage in the morning and one in the afternoon. Mr. Rodriguez stated he would rather speak about this in private. He advised he would come to the police station to spea~ with me. Rodriguez stated he would return my call on Monday, November 14, 2005 . I then made telephone contact with Juan Alessi. He advised he found my card on his door and wanted to know what I needed to speak with him about. I explained to Alessi that I was conducting an investigation on his former employer, Mr. Epstein. Alessi stated he would return my call shortly as he was in the middle of a project at his home. I received a telephone call from Attorney Donald Morrell from 686-2700. Mr. Morrell stated he represented Mr. Alessi and did not want me speaking with his client. I then made telephone contact with the State Attorneys Office and confirmed that subpoenas would be issued to the former employees to assist in the investigation. I then made telephone contact with Attorney Guy Fronstin, attorney for Mr - Epstein. I explained to Mr . Fronstin that I would like to speak with Mr. Epstein" He stated Mr . Epstein is not in residence in Florida at this time and would check with him to ascertain if he could be here by Wednesday November 16, 2005 for an interview. Mr. Fronstin stated he would return my call should Mr . Epstein decide to come in to the police station for an interview. Investigation continues . ** ************************NARRATIVE # 19 ************************** Reported By: RBCAREY , JOSEPH 11/15/0 5 Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/16 /0 5 On November 14, 2005 , Det. Sandman and I traveled to t ■ in •••••••1•••• and spoke with•••••• She was told of the ongoing investigation involving Epstein . advised she had gone to the house on several occasions. During a sworn taped statement, she advised she start aitng to the house approximately one year ago and was brought by (Unknown last name). stated41•■ brought her into the house and she was introduced to a girl named Sarah. Once she met her, Sarah brought her upstairs into a master bedroom bathroom. Gll■■■- stated she met Jeffrey in the bathroom. He lay on the table and picked the massage oils. She provided the massage, as he lay naked on the massage bed. She stated she rubbed his calves and back area. Upon the end of the massage, Epstein removed himself from the massage table and paid her $300. 00 for the massage. "'I .stated she had only been at the house approximately five or u six times. --••••said each time she went to the house she was notified by Sarah, Epstein's assistant, that Epstein was in town and would like her to work. ■■--stated she returned to the house and was again led upstairs by Sarah. She provided the massage , clothed . GJUFFRE000052 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 45 ·------------------------------------------------------------------------------ )ate: 7/19 / 06 ~ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 52 Program: CMS301L :ase ~ No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued ) advised it wasn't really weird until later on . askedi.f she ever removed her clothing to provide a massage. was stated it was not until the third time she went that she removed her clothing. -.,stated she was notified by Sarah that Epstein wanted her to come to work. She arrived at the house and was led upstairs by Sarah. She started providing the massage when Epstein asked her to remove her clothing . •••••removed her pants, shirt and bra. She stayed in her thong panties and continued rubbing Epstein. Epstein turned over onto his back and she rubbed his chest area . • stated she knew he was masturbating himself as she providing the massage . •-••• stated she believed he climaxed based on his breathing. She did not want to view either the climax or the fact that he was masturbating. ••• •stated once the breathing relaxed he got up and told her to get dressed. She was paid $3 00.00 for her services. stated on the last time she went to provide a massage , she was notified by Sarah to come to the house and work. [ stated she was now dating her current boyfriend and did not feel comfortable going. She recalled it was approximately January 2005. She said she went, already thinking that this would be the last time . She went upstairs and went into the master bathroom. She met with Epstein, who was wearing only a towel as he entered the room to lie on the table. •••••stated Epstein caught her looking at the clock on several occasions. Epstein asked her if she was in a hurry. .._ stated her boyfriend was in the car waiting for her. further stated that Epstein got upset, as she wasn 1 t enjoying the massage. She told him that she didn't want to continue and she would not be back. Epstein told her to leave as she was ruining his massage. I asked her if she had any contict with Epstein's· organization, she stated she received $200.00 from Western Union in Royal Palm Beach and Okeechobee Blvd as a Christmas gift ■■ advised she had no formal training in provide any massages. •••also stated she was sixteen years old when she first went to Epstein 1 s house. At approximately 4:22 pm, I made telephone contact with at-•■•• She agreed to meet with me at a public place. I suggested she come to the police station for an interview. Mid did not want to meet at the police station. I recommended we meet at the Palm Beach Gardens Mall in the food court area. She agreed and an appointment was made for November 15 , 2005 at 5:00 pm at the food court. Investigations Continue. ~*************************NARRATIVE # 20 ************************** Reported By: SANDMAN, JENNIFER R. 11/16 / 05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11/17 / 05 On 10/ 2 0/2 00 5 , I assisted executing a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way in the Town of Palm Beach, Palm Beach County Florida under the direction of affiant Detective Joe Recarey . GIUFFRE000053 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 45 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date: 7/19/06 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 53 Program: CMS301L ------- -------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------- : ase No . . .. : 1-05-000368 (Continued) Detective Melnichok and I searched the pantry room that is west next to the kitchen. This room had all white cabinets with a dark grey and black counter top. We did not find anything in this room . We searched the yellow and blue room that is west next to the pantry room. This room had a very large statue of man with a bow. Taken into evidence from this room were nine photographs in frames of various women . We searched the main entrance foyer that is to the north of the yellow and blue room. This room contained two bamboo chairs and ottomans with cushions. It also contained a round table with numerous books. We searched another blue room that is west of the foyer. This room had a stereo system and book shelves that were from the floor to the ceiling , Taken into evidence from this room were eiqht photographs in frames of various women and/or Epstein , the owner of the residence . We searched the room to the west of the blue room that has sliding glass doors that lead out to the pool. In this room in a dresser were two DVD's and two VCR tapes. These items were taken into evidence. We searched a 2004 black Chevy Suburban bearing Florida tag X99-EGL, registered to Jeffrey Epstein DOB 01/20/53, which was located on the east side of the driveway facing south. I found a ~hrifty rental agreement between the passenger seat and the middle console. The name on the rental agreement was Johanna Sjoberg from 622 Holly Drive Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410. The phone number on the rental agreement was (561) 714-0546. The vehicle rented was a white 2005 Chrysler Sebring bearing Florida tag W99-FUN. The vehicle was rented on 9/25/05 at 17:58 hours and was returned on 9/26/05 at 16:52 hours. The last four numbers of the credit card used are 9821. Detective Melnichok found a piece of paper in the middle console that said I used the cash in here to fill up the tank and was signed by Johanna. I searched the 2005 black Cadillac Escalade ESV bearing Florida tag Q29-9GT, registered to Jeffrey Epstein dob 01/20/53 , which was located on the west side of the driveway facing south. I did not find anything in this vehicle. All of the items that were taken into evidence were photographed in the place they were located and then turned over to crime scene. **************************NARRATIVE # 21 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY 1 JOSEPH 11 / 17 / 05 Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 11 / 17 / 05 GIUFFREOOOOS4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 11 of 45 -----------------~--------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7/ 19 / 06 ime : 15 : O 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 54 Program: CMS301L ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ase No . . 1-05-000368 (Continued) on November 15 1 2005, Det , Sandman and I traveled to in•■■-•••••• We met with a seventeen-year old juvenile who was not in school this day due to a cold from which she was suffering. L J was told that I needed to speak with her in reference to an ongoing investigation involving a subject she would know as Jeffrey Epstein . Prior to speaking with her, I explained that because of the fact that she is a minor, I needed to speak with her parents prior to speaking with her. She telephoned her father, Mr. , on his cell phone and explained to him that Det. Sandman and I were there to speak with her . I spoke with Mr. -on the telephone and informed him I needed to speak with his daughter in reference to an ongoing investigation. Mr.••••• advised he had no problem with us speaking wi th his daughter. During a sworn taped statement, stated she met Jeffrey Epstein over a year ago. She was sixteen years of age and was approached by •••ll'l•••who informed her that she could make monies providing a massage to Epstein for $200.00. ••• had informed her that she would have to provide this massage topless. made the arrangements with Epstein and his assistants and took to the house. ••••1 stated and she entered through a glass door that led into a kitchen. took her upstairs, to a master bedroom and master bathroom. She recalled the bathroom had a large pink couch, sau.na and matching shower. Epstein entered into the room wearing only a towel. ■ I ana••aremoved their clothing remaining only in thong underwear. She further stated that Epstein lay on his chest on the table. Epstein selected which oils to use for the massage. Bothtl■■•anda••••provided the massage on his legs, back and feet. Forty minutes into the massage, Epstein turned over onto his back and requested••• wait downstairs in the kitchen area for g £ • Epstein instructed •••••to finish the massage . As •••got dressed,ill•• astarting rubbing his chest. left the room, and Epstein began masturbating himself as rubbed Epstein s chest. •••■• stated he continued masturbating until he climaxed on the towel he was wearing. When asked if he had removed the towel she stated he turned the towel around so that the opening would allow him to expose himself. After he cleaned himself off with the towel, he instructea••••~the massage was done and to get dressed and met with him downstairs. ■■■-got dressed and met with Epstein in the kitchen area. She was paid $200.00 dollars for providing the massage. •• •ll~tated she was aware that••• also received monies for the same thing, The second time she went to the house she was again approached by asked if she wanted to return to the house to provide another massage;fil••••agreed and the arrangements were made by • £ for her to return to the house . .. •••• stateq I t drove her to the house and knocked on the same glass door that leads to the kitchen area. They were allowed entry into the house by one of the staff members . -•ed her upstairs to the master bedroom and GIUFFRE000055 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 12 of 45 ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ate: 7/ 19/06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 55 Program: CMS301L -------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- --- 5se No. : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) master bathroom area. ••a1eftllil• -this time to do the massage alone. Epstein entered the room again wearing only a towel. e:y began removing her clothing as she did the last time she was at the house. Epstein instructed her to get naked. He lay on the table on his stomach as .. •••~ began massaging his legs and back . As .. ■■■•finished with Epstein•s back and legs, Epstein then turned over onto his back. started to rub his chest and he began masturbating himself. As rubbed his chest, Epstein leaned over and produced a massager/vibrator. He turned it on and began rubbing•••• •vagina and masturbating himself at the same time. stated she continued to rub his chest as this was occurring . She described the vibrator/massager as large, grey with a large head . Epstein rubbed her vagina for approximately two to three minutes with the massager/vibrator. He then removed the vibrator from her vaginal area and concentrated on masturbating himself. • ■ stated he climaxed onto the towel again and informed her that the massage was done. ■••• got dressed and met with•••who was waiting in the kitchen area. She received $200 . 00 for the massage. ••••a said she never returned to the house and had no desire to return to the house. 1111•••• was asked if she received any formal massage training. She advised she had no formal training. ••• •was asked if Epstein knew her real age . II ,1± stated he knew as he asked her questions about herself and high school , He was aware she attended and is still attending ii The interview was concluded . I suggeste,bll I inform her parents of what occurred at the Epstein house. stated she would tell her father as he was unaware this had occurred. I left my business card for any questions they may have. We left the area and returned to the police station. The tape was placed into evidence. Investigation Continues. **************************NARRATIVE # 22 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 11/17/ 05 Entered By . : ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 11/17/ 05 On November 15, 2005, Officer Munyan and I responded to the Palm Beach Gardens Mall food court section to meet with llil•a ••• At approximately 5:10 p.m.,••••arrived and met with us at the food court. 11■■-tprovided a sworn taped statement in which she stated she had been at the Epstein house over fifty times. She began going to Epstein 1 s house when she turned eighteen years old. ll•ilawas asked if she knew of the on-going investigation. ••••stated she wa9, aware there was an investigation as she had been told by other girls that were interviewed. Additionally, she has had several telephone conversations with Epstein 1 s assistants as to what had been going on during the investigation. I asked how she was introduced to Epstein . tated she did not want to disclose who brought her to the house but she would GIUFFRE000056 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 13 of 45 ·---------------·- -------------------------------------------------------------- )ate : 7/19/ 0 6 ['ime: 15: O 1: 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 56 Program: CMS301L ~----------------------------------------·------------- ------------------------- :ase No. . . : 1-05 - 000368 {Continued) respond to any other questions. When I asked her what happened at the house, •••■ stated everything happened. It all began with the massages. Each time she went more things happened. She would massage Epstein and he would masturbate and climax. She stated things escalated from there. She provided oral sex on Epstein and he provided oral sex on her. She stated he would also use a massager/vibrator on her vagina to stimulate her as she massaged him . He introduced his assistant Nadia or Nada to have vaginal intercourse with·•·~ She stated Nada or Nadia would utilize a strap-on (synthetic penis} to have intercourse with her. She was told to masturbate herself as Epstein and Nada had sexual intercourse. All this was done at Epstein's direction. could not Erovide exact dates as she had been to the house so many times. SI stated Epstein inserted his fingers in her vagina to stimulate her as she massaged him. When I asked her if there had been any vaginal intercourse with Epstein, she stated she did not have sex with him. She did admit having sex with Nada, his assistant. , JJ stated not every time she went involved sexual favors. ometimes she would just talk with him and get paid . I asked her how much she was paid each time she went to Epstein s residence. stated she got paid $300 . 00 every time she went to the house., She was declined introduce told to bring other girls to him to provide massages. stating that she does what she does and did not want to anyone else to do what she does. •••■ stated she had any formal training in providing massages. never received I showed a photo line up in which Nada Marcinkova was placed in position six. She reviewed the six photographs and immediately identified Nada Marcinkova as the person with whom she had intercourse. Additionally, it was the same person she watched have intercourse with Epstein. She signed the photo line-up under Nada Marcinkova s photo as the person she identified. We then left the mall and returned to the police station. The photo line up and tape were placed in to evidence. Investigation Continues .. . **************************NARRATI V E # 23 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 11/29/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 12/01/05 On November 17, 2 00 5, I received a phone message from Atty. Guy Fronstin who advised to call his cellular phone reference his client Jeffrey Epstein. I telephoned his cell phone and left a message for him to return my call. I did not receive a call back on Thursday, November 17, 2005. On Friday, November 18 2005, I retrieved another voice mail from my work phone from Mr. Fronstin advising he would not produce his client Jeffrey Epstein for any statement. Fronstin stated he had spoken with ASA Lana Belohlavek and expressed Mr. Epstein has a passion for massages. I called ASA Lana Belohlavek and confirmed that GIUFFRE000057 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 14 of 45 ~---- ----- ---- ---------------~---------------------------- --- -- ---------------- )ate : 7 I l 9 Io 6 E'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 57 Program: CMS301L ---------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --- ------------- ---- :ase No . ... : 1-05-000368 Fronstin had telephoned discussed, Mr. Fronstin about massages . (Continued) her reference this case. Although nothing was did advise her that Epstein is very passionate I also spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss reference the previous employees, Juan and Maria Alessi. She advised that they had been served through a subpoena process server. They were both scheduled to appear on Monday November 21, 2005 at 12:00 p.m , On November 21, 2005, I met with ASA Weiss, Atty. Donnie Murrell and Juan and Maria Alessi at the State Attorney Office. ASA Weiss had requested a court reporter to be present to take the statement of the Alessi s. I spoke with Maria Alessi, in the presence of her attorney, Donnie Murrell. She advised she had worked for Epstein for eight years, from the period of 1994 through 2002. She advised she had never had any direct conversations with him. She stated it was her husband who spoke directly with Epstein. Her work consisted of doing house cleaning, shopping and other preparations when Epstein would arrive ~Jl town. Alessi stated the preparations consisted of preparing the house and bathrooms for his arrival. She advised she did view several masseuses that arrived at the house. She advised that two or three girls would come during a day and provide the massages. The girls that arrived looked young in age. Mrs. Alessi did not know any of the girls personally and were always different. She was told that when Epstein was in residence he did not want to encounter the Alessis during his stay in Palm Beach. I then spoke with Mr. Alessi in the presence of his attorney, Donnie Murrell. Mr. Alessi stated that he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein. He originally was hired as a part time employee and then moved up into a full time position. His duties included everything. Alessi stated he was the house manager, driver and house maintenance person. It was his responsibility to prepare the house for Epstein s arrival. When asked about cooks or assistants, Alessi stated they traveled with Epstein on his private plane. He remembered dealing with his girlfriend, Ms. Maxwell originally and then dealt with Epstein directly. I asked Mr. Alessi about massages that occurred within the home. Mr. Alessi stated Mr. Epstein had up to three massages a day. Each masseuse that visited the house was different. Alessi stated that towards the end of his employment, the masseuses were younger and younger. When asked how young, Mr. Alessi stated they appeared to be sixteen or seventeen years of age at the most. The massages would occur in Epstein's bedroom or bathroom. There were times he recalled that he would set up the massage tables either in Epstein s bedroom or in his bathroom. I asked if there were things going on other than a massage. Alessi stated that there were times towards the end of his employment that he would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage. Additionally, he stated the bed would almost always have to be made after the massage. Alessi was never privy to what went on during the GIUFFRE000058 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 15 of 45 ---- -----------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Jate: 7/19 / 06 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 58 Program: CMS301L p--- --------------------------- ------ -- -- -------------------------------------- ~ase No .. massages . : 1 - 05 - 000368 (Continued ) He was asked if he remembered any names of the girls that massaged Epstein. He tried to remember and was unable to provide any exact names of any girls.- Alessi was asked about any contact with anyone from the Epstein organization. Alessi said he did speak with Mr. Epstein shortly after my initial contact with him to find out what was going on . Alessi also stated that approximately on November 11, 2005 , he was contacted by a private investigator from the Law Office of Roy Black. The investigator had called him to meet with him to ascertain what he was going to tell the police. Alessi stated they met at the Carrabba s Restaurant in Boynton Beach and discussed the same questions I was asking him. I informed Mr. Alessi and Mr. Morrell that as this is an ongoing investigation and anything we discuss should be confidential. They both acknowledged the fact that the information would be kept confidential. It should be noted that a court reporter was present during the interviews and would be providing a copy of the statements to me when they become available . On November 21, 2005, I received a voice mail from Mr . Fronstin who advised he would not be making Mr. Epstein available for any statements. He did have some words that he wanted to relay on behalf of Mr. Epstein. I telephoned his office and left a message for him to return my call . On November 29, 2005, I received a call back from Mr. Fronstin who left a voice mail after hours on November 28 , 2005, advising he would return my call during normal business hours to speak with me reference the case on November 29, 2005 . ****************** ********NARRATI V E # 24 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY 1 JOSEPH 11/29/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 12/01/05 On November 29 , 2005 , at approximately 2:30 p.rn. I received a telephone call on the department issued cell phone. Mr. Fronstin stated he was calling to relay information that Mr. Epstein wished he could relay. Mr. Fronstin stated that he would not allow Mr. Epstein to speak with me at this time. He further stated that Mr. Epstein is very passionate about massages. He continued that Mr . Epstein had allegedly donated over $100,000 to the Ballet of Florida for massages . The massages are therapeutic and spiritually sound for him that is why he has had many massages. Mr. Fronstin stated he appreciated the way the investigation has not been leaked out into the media. I explained to Mr. Fronstin that it is as important to protect the innocent if the allegations are not substantiated. Mr. Fronstin was told of the allegations that the private investigators assigned to the case have been portraying themselves as police officers. Additionally, I explained that my cell phone had been called by the private investigators . Mr . Fronstin advised he was not aware of that and advised they were under the direction of Attorney Roy Black in GIUFFRE000059 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 16 of 45 --------------------------------------------------~----------------------- ----- Date: 7/19 / 06 Time : 15 : D 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 59 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case No . . . . 1-05-000368 (Continued) Miami. Mr. Fronstin further stated Epstein had originally called Mr . Dershorwitz in Boston, who recommended Roy Black in Miami, who asked Mr. Fronstin to assist. I informed him that if and when any charges would be presented I would notify him. The call was then terminated . Investigation continues . '***************************NARRATI V E # 25 ************************** JA Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/15/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/16/05 A review of the telephone message books, which were obtained during the search warrant, was conducted in which various messages from different dates were made to Jeffrey Epstein. The telephone message books have a duplicate copy (Carbon Copy) which, once a phone message is written into the book , the top copy is then torn on the perforated edge and the carbon copy is left in the book. First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers were on the copy of the messages. I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been interviewed. The body of the messages was time of the day that they called for confirmation of 11 work. 11 Other names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I have 2 girls for him." These messages were taken by Sarah · for Jeffrey Epstein" Based on the context of the body of the messages, I requested subpoenas for subscriber information on the telephone numbers and the time frame involved . Copies of the messages were made for evidentiary purposes. I obtain a 1 eaf.£ . d th 2005 b ykearbdoo1 ks tfodr 200St , 2fOOh4 and 2003. irst reviewe e year oo an oca e mos o t e girls I had spoken with . Additionally, I located Based on the corrected name spelling, I was able to locate her to her residence in . On December 8, 2005, Det. CariFto and I responded to . inti•■■■■ I located ••• •at her home. She advised she is attendingt11••11111•11t•••llllll••and is participating in the early release program so she can maintain her part time job. As she is still a minor 1 I left my business card to have her mother return my call to request an interview with her daughter. We then left the area. I also had previously telephone number information on 7 I J of tlat she is the researched the telephone number for and A subpoena had been issued for the The telephone number was registered to A query of•••lllll• -revealed and is currently residing at Det. Caristo and I attempted contact witl LI ,.rith negative results . I left my business card on her front door requesting she return my call. We then responded to -· - •• •• • -- •• - •• • y • • I also attempted contact with Mr with negative results . I left my business card for him to return my call . GIUFFRE000060 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 17 of 45 Ja t e : 7 / 1 9 / o 6 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 60 Program: CMS301L ~ase No ... l-05-000368 (Continued) On December 9, 2005, mother, I received who was a made telephone aware call of the from on going ~ investigation in Palm Beach. •••• advised she was told of everything that occurred at Epstein's house involving Epstein and his staff. She advised she would allow me to question her daughter about what occurred and would cooperate with the investigation. provided me with-•• a. cellular telephone number to schedule an appointment for an official interview. I telephoned her cellular telephone and made a tentative appointment for Monday, December 12, 2005. I then received a telephone call from••• , father of S who stated he found the business card on his door. I explained that I was conducting an investigation and needed to speak with11- as she may have information that could assist in the investigation. Mr.•• -•stated that his daughter no longer resides with him and has her own trailer in another trailer park. He advised he would tell her to call me. On December 12, 2005, due to a conflict with schedules, arrangements were made to meet with t1•••~ on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 5:00 pm. On December 13, 2005, Det. Dawson and I traveled to and met with ■ ···••••• During a sworn taped statement, DA stated that when she was sixteen years old, she was taken to Epstein's house to provide a massage for moneift stated it was before Christmas last year when ES J approached her and asked if she needed to make money for Christmas; stated she did and agreed to provide a massage for money . .:==~made arrangements to ,take • to the house and drove to the house to 11 work. 11 •••a,stated she could not remember the street name but would be able to drive to the street. They drove to the last house on the street and pulled in the last house on left side. They walked up the driveway and entered through a side gate which led to a kitchen door. They knocked on the door and were encountered by an employee who••••described as a '1 Spanish looking lady. 11 They informed her that they were expected. They were then encountered by a white female with long blond hair. •--~was unable to remember the name of the white female with blond hair but knew she was Epstein's assistant. She was led upstairs by the white female who explained that there would be lotions out already and Epstein would choose the lotion he wanted her to use. She was led through a spiral staircase which led to a master bedroom and bathroom. The massage table was already set up in the bathroom. ••••described the bathroom as a large spacious bathro~m with a steam room and shower beside it with a sink to the right. ••••was introduced to Jeff who was on the phone when she enterea. Jeff was wearing a white towel and lay on his stomach so that •••-may massage his feet and calves. -•••started the massage with the massage oil Jeff chose and rubbed his feet and calves. Jeff got off the phone and requested she massage his back as well. ••••began rubbing his back and got to the small of his back . During the rubbing of his back Jeff asked her to get comfortable. He GIUFFRE00006 l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 18 of 45 ·--- ------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------- --- )ate: 7/19/06 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 61 Program: CMS301L ----------- -~--------------------~------ --------------------------------------- ~ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued} requested she remove her pants and shirt. ■■■-removed her shirt and pulled her pants off. •• IJstayed in her bra and thong panties. As she finished the small of the back, Jeff then turned onto his back. He instructed she rub his chest and pinch his nipples. As she began to rub his chest, Jeff asked her questions about hgself. remembered telling him she attended £ - Q Jeff asked her if she was sexually active. Before - could answer, he also asked what sexual positions does she enjoy. stated she was shy didn't like talking about those things. She continued rubbing his chest. Epstein reached up and unsnapped her bra from the front . ••explained the bra she used had a front snapping device. Epstein rubbed her breasts and asked her if she like having her breasts rubbed ........ said "no, I don I t like that. 11 Epstein then removed his towel and lay on the bed naked exposing his penis t He beg¥ touching his penis and masturbated as he touched her breasts. •~• explained Jeff then touched her vagina area by rubbing her vagina with his fingers on the outside of her thong panties . ■■•tensed up and stated Jeff was aware that she was uncomfortable. f[ stated that Jeff told her, "Relax, I'm not going inside." She further explained Jeff commented to her how beautiful and sexy she was. Jeff then moved her thong panties to one side and now was stroking her clitoris. •••• said "Jeff commented how hard my cli t was," He then inserted two fingers in her vagina and was stroking her within her vagina. She tried pulling back to pull out his fingers from within her vagina. Jeff removed his fingers from within her vagina and apologized for putting his fingers inside her. During this time he kept his hand on her vagi!').a area rubbing her vagina. stated he rubbed her real hard as he was masturbating. •••• said he climaxed onto the towel he had been previously wearing and got up from the table. Jeff told her there was $200 . 00 dollars for her on the dresser within the master bathroom. Jeff also told her that there was an additional $100.00 that was to be given tc,11■■1 for bringing her there to massage him , Jeff told her to leave her telephone number with his assistant as he wanted to see her again. Jeff stated his assistant would contact her to work again soon. I asked her if she ever received any formal massage training to which stated she did not. •••a stated it was the only time she ever went to work for Jeff and knew what happened to her was wrong . She stated she no longer speaks totl■■•because she was upset that took her there , She further stated that she had never been contacted for any additional work. The interview was terminated and we left the area. Investigation Continues . . . •*************************NARRATI V E # 26 ** ************************ Reported By: DICKS , ALLEN C. 12/18/05 Entered By.; ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/19/05 GJUFFRE000062 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 19 of 45 ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- )ate: 7/ 19/06 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 62 Program: CMS301L -------------------- -------------------- ----- ---- ------------ -------- ---------- :ase No. . : 1 - 05 - 000368 (Continued) On 102005 at approx 0930hrs I assisted with the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Ave, Palm Beach. Initially I was assigned to enter the residence and conduct a sweep of the premises for safety purposes . I then accompanied CSEU tech Pavlik while she photographed the exterior of the house. Once this was complete I was assigned to search certain areas of the house with Det. Dawson as part of the search warrant. We began in the garage, searching three Mercedes Benz vehicles, a Harley Davidson motorcycle and adjacent closets in the garage . Nothing of evidentiary value was located. We then searched two closets off the kitchen area on the east side. These can best be described as pantry or storage closets. Nothing of evidentiary value was obtained. A small office with adjoining bath was then searched. In the bath area I located a phone message book with recent messages . This item was seized as evidence . Please note this bath and shower area are not used as designed but are storage areas containing a variety of items to include a gun safe in the shower and assorted household items. We then searched a bath area and closet at the base of the main stairs in the foyer. Inside the closet two massage tables were located as well as partial nude female photographs. These items were later seized as evidence. Nothing of evidentiary value was noted in the bathroom. We then searched two bedrooms upstairs on the east side of the residence . Located in the bath room of the south bedroom was penis shaped soap . Located in the bedroom of the northern bedroom was penis and vagina shaped soap as well as an adult sex toy. These items were seized as evidence. We then searched the pool cabana located in the south west corner of the property . Several photographs of nude females were seized as evidence. I was then assigned to stand by with a person I believe was Douglas Schoettle. Mr. Schoettle was in the residence at the beginning of the search warrant. He was present during the warrant service and subsequent search. I stood by with him until the search was completed and I departed the residence. I had no conversation with him regarding the reason for our presence. Regarding seized evidence, all items were photographed in place and then collected by CSEU personnel . This concludes my involvement in this case . GJUFFRE000063 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 20 of 45 ----- --- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------ )ate: 7/ 19 / 06 rime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 63 Program: CMS301L ·--------------------------------------------------------------------~--------- ~ase No . ... : 1-05-000368 (Continued) ***************************NARRATIVE # 27 ************************** IA Reported By: KRAUEL, CURTIS D. 12/21/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05 On Thursday, October 20, 2005 at approximately 0936 hours, I assisted in the execution of a search warrant located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, residence of Jeffrey Epstein . I was instructed by Case Agent Det . Joseph Recarey, to secure all computer and media related material from the residence. Upon my arrival I was directed by Det . Recarey to a room designated as the Kitchen Staff Office. I observed a, Silver in color, CPU with the left side cover removed, exposing the CPUs hardware sitting on floor next to a glass type desk. The CPU had no discernable identifiers or features indicating a make or model. This CPU was powered off with the power cord not plugged in . The keyboard and mouse were atop the CPU. It should be noted that the CPU was not connected to a monitor , p r inter, or other media device . On the back Panel of the CPU, I observed an A/V card with RCA jacks attached . This type of hardware would allow audio and video to be downloaded onto the CPUs hard disk. The ends of the RCA jacks were unattached at the time of the search and no external camera was located within this room. The CPU was located on the right side of a desk that held a flat panel LCD screen. The desk also held another keyboard and mouse, indicative of a second computer; however, no other computer was found. It appeared as though a second computer had been recently removed as the cables ends from the monitor, keyboard and mouse were in the same area. A further search of the room revealed no media storage devices, i . e. CDs, Floppy Disks, Zip Disks, etc. This type of media is commonly stored in an area where computers are placed , yet no media was found. After completing a search of this room, I secured the CPU and turned all items over to the Evidence Custodian for future forensic analysis via a property receipt. I was then directed by Det. Recarey to a room designated as the Garden Room, where I observed a wooden desk facing west. The desk held a flat screen LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, media card reader and printer; however, no CPU was located. All of the cables were removed from an area where a computer had once been. A search of the desk area revealed no signs of any media devices. Det. Recarey directed me to a third location designated as the Cabana room, which is detached from the residence and located just south of the pool. In the South East corner of the room, I observed an office type setting, with an L-shaped desk holding a flat screen LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse and printer; however, no CPU was located , All of the cables were removed from an area where a computer had once been . A search of the desk area revealed no s i gns of any media devices . GIUFFRE000064 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 21 of 45 --- -- -------------------------------------------------~---------------------- late: 7/19 /0 6 'irne : 15 : 0 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 64 Program: CMS3 01L ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ '.ase No . .. . : 1-05-000368 (Continued ) Det. Recarey directed me to a second detached structure located on the South East corner of the property. This area of this structure was assigned with single letters to identify a particular part of the room. In the office area, designated as Room B, I observed a powered on Dell Dimension 2350, attached to an LCD flat panel monitor. The screen displayed an open Microsoft Internet Explorer browser with URL address of http://home.bellsouth.net/. I observed no other active windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen .. The power cord was removed from the back of the Dell CPU and I disconnected the cable modem to prevent remote access. At that time, the Dell CPU, marked with Seri~l Number 6WTVN21, was secured and turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt .. I also located several media related items within Room B, which were recorded onto a property receipt and turned over the Evidence Custodians . I then responded to a Bedroom designated as Room F, where I observed a white in color CPU marked Premio. The Premio CPU was in a computer desk which held a white CRT monitor, both of which were powered on. The CRT monitor displayed a message from Norton Antivirus software, warning of an expired subscription . I observed no other active windows in the Start panel window and photographed screen. I removed the power cable from the back of the Prernio CPU and shutdown all other media. The Premio CPU, marked with Serial Number 2000091078, was secured and turned over the evidence custodian for future forensic analysis via property receipt. I also located several media related items within Room F, which were recorded onto a property receipt and turned over the Evidence Custodians. This concluded my participation in the search of the residence . '**************************NARRATIVE # 28 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/21/ 05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/21/05 On December 20, 2005 , I contacted ASA Daliah Weiss in an attempt to subpoena the Epstein former houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez. Rodriguez , who resides in Miami, had eluded the process servers previously and was not served the investigative subpoena. A telephone message was left as she is not available during the week of 12/19/2005. I made contact with State Attorney Inv Theresa Wyatt and requested the same via telephone message. I then researched the victim 's-cellular telephone subpoena data which had been received from a previous subpoena request. I analyzed the records which depict several calls frorn Haley Robson. The telephone calls start on February 6, 2005 at 12:49 pm.; the same day which the victim and the victim's father stated the incident occurred at Epstein s house. The first incoming call was from Robson's residence at 561 333 - 0180. The second incoming call from Robson 1 s GlUFFRE0D0065 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 22 of 45 -- -- -- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7/19/06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 65 Program: CMS301L ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ase No. : l-05-000368 (Continued ) cellular phone 561-308-0282 occurred at 1:02 pm. The call durations were one minute or less. The time frame was within thirteen minutes apart. It should be noted that Robson s residence was in close proximity to the victim's. The next call occurred at 5:50 pm when the victim telephoned Robson s residence. Several calls were made after the above mentioned calls both incoming and outgoing to Robson. Further analysis showed no telephone calls to either Robson's cellular telephone or Robson's residence were registered prior to February 6, 2005. Additionally, I also conducted an analysis on the telephone calls from 305-710-5165. The subscriber information confirmed that the number is registered to Paul A Lavery from Hialeah, Florida. The address was crossed referenced to the Office of Kiraly and Riley Private Investigators. I researched the web page www.rileykiraly.com which also showed various cases in which they assisted. I also located another web site under www.coralspringssparklandrotary.org in which Mr. Riley attended a Miami Rotary meeting and confirmed Atty. Roy Black is among his clientele. The telephone calls revealed Lavery had telephone contact with .... and••■•••~ either just after I attempted to interview them, or Just prior. A background was conducted on Lavery which revealed he holds a current Private Investigator License. A criminal arrest record revealed he had been previously arrested for possession of cocaine and solicitation of prostitution . I also researched the girls using www.myspace.com. This web site is a new social networking service that allows members to create uniq~e personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new friends. The site allows one to establish your own myspace.corn page and decorate the page any way one wishes. I found the following people have myspace sites: Halef, Rob~on, 1 ... and a I received a Cingular Wireless packet which contained a CD which contained the results of the subpoena request for verbatim calls on An analysis will be conducted in the near future on the phone numbers called. Investigation Continues . **************************NARRATI V E # 29 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 12/27/05 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 12/29/05 Upon doing research on the message books recovered in the search warrant, I located the identity of The telephone number as registered to & 2!S!!£Q_ She currently is seventeen years old and is attending the...... J. I GnJFFRE000066 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 23 of 45 ---------------------------------------·----------~------ ~--------------------- 3.te: 7/19 / 06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 66 Program: CMS301L -------------------------------------------- .--------------------------------- ~se No. : 1-05-000368 (Continued) M I located the ••• I located responded to••••••IIIII ======== also known as the alllllltinside the foundation and informed her that I was investigating a case against Jeffrey Epstein and knew she had been at the house. ■ started to cry and advised she had put that part of her life behiiia her. I explained that although she is seventeen years old I needed to inform her parents that she would be interviewed. She provided her home telephone number. I attempted contact and left voice mail messages at the house to speak with her parents. Det. Caristo and I then located --at her residence located at•■■•••••in I attempted to interview her about Jeffrey Epstein. She advised she is so in love with Jeff Epstein and would do anything for him. She further explained that she would not speak with us about him either negative or positive. She asked us to leave her property. I informed her that although she did not wish to speak w~th us, I had sufficient information at this point in the investigation to know she was at Epstein's house and provided girls to Epstein to work. I also explained that prior to our arrival at her residence I had telephone contact with her father, 16 who was told she would be interviewed. currently seventeen years old and as a juvenile, parental would be required. We then left the area and returned to station. is notification the police While at the police station, I left another telephone message for J • parents. I began an analysis of Sarah Kellen's Cellular telephone. The telephone number 917-855-3363 is assigned to Sarah Kellen and the financially responsible party is Jeffrey Epstein of 457 Madison Ave. in New York City, New York. The time frame which was subpoenaed was September 2005, through October 2005. There were eighty seven pages of calls made either to the cell phone or from the cell phone. The local (561) numbers were analyzed. A spread sheet was prepared and placed into the attachment file of who was called. The unknown numb.ers were researched using FoneFinder. com and subpoenas wer·e requested to determine subscriber information. This was done to identify additional victims or witnesses. The analysis revealed that Kellen had called the victim/witnesses frequently when Epstein was in the Town of Palm Beach to 11 work. 11 This confirms what the girls interviewed had previously stated. Kellen would notify them when Epstein was in tovm. and their willingness to 11 work, u The CD was placed into evidence. Investigation Continues . *************************NARRATIVE # 3 0 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1 / 03/06 Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1 / 03/06 On December 29 , 2005 , I received a facsimile from National Compliance GIUFFRE000067 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 24 of 45 -------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- )ate: 7/19/06 ~ime : 15 : 01 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 67 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ '.ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued} Center from Cingular Wireless for telephone number 561-308-0282. This was the telelh[ne number for Haley Robson during the time frame when the victim, was brought to the Epstein house to 11 work. 11 An analysis of the phone records, of all incoming and outgoing calls, showed that on February 6, 2005, the day the victim,411111J was brought to the house, Robson first called Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, at 917-855-3363at 12:50 pm (EST). The next call was made to Epstein ' s house in Palm Beach, at 12:52 pm (EST). The following call was made to the victim, .. lat 1:01 pm (EST} and at 1:02 pm (EST). This confirms the information provided by the victim and victim 1 s father. I photo copied the records and enlarged the page B of 10 to show the calls made by Robson on February 6, 2005. To this date, I have not heard from parents. I will attempt to establish contact with them during the evening hours . I received a package from Atty. Guy Fronstin, which was hand delivered at the police station. Within the package, was a letter from Alan Dershowitz, and two www.myspace.com profiles. The profiles were that of·······•~and In MySpace.com is a social networking service that allows members to create unique personal profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and new friends. This package was in response to a previous meeting in which Mr. Dershowitz called to assist in the investigation in providing any additional witnesses such as house employees who have been reluctant to speak with law enforcement. I reviewed the p~iles Mr. Dershowitz enclosed. who designed her blog to be ... II I IL a It still attends sends and receives messages from friends which contain some profanity. Upon reviewing her friends' comments section from Myspace, most of her good friends sent messages to establish contact and invite her to go out. I then reviewed . web blog which was provided by Mr. Dershowitz. Ms. M Q designed her blog to be •111■■■ 1 Her blog states that her interests include music, theater and weed (Marijuana). I reviewed her packet in which••adeclares her love for her live-in borfriend. She also describes using marijuana with her boyfriend a The letter Mr. Dershowitz sent advised he was looking into the allegation that one of the private investigators used by the private attorneys of Epstein, attempted to impersonate or state that they were police officers from Palm Beach. Mr. Dershowitz advised that the investigators used to interview•••••••• had "quite a distinct speech impediment'', did not claim to be nor did they impersonate themselves as a police officer. This package was sent to both ASA Lana Belohlavic and ASA Daliah Weiss at the State Attorney's Office . I made telephone contact with ASA Weiss to confirm she received the package and request an interview with Sarah Kellen , Nada Marcinkova , and Janusz Banasiak. She advised she would assist in attempting to GIUFFRE000068 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 25 of 45 ----------- ------------------------------------------------------·------------- •ate: 7/19/06 'ime: 15: 01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 68 Program: CMS301L ----- ----------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------- as e No . . 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) contact Mr. Dershowitz. on January 3, 1 2006, I received a telephone call from ASA Weiss who informed me that she made telephone contact with Mr; Dershowitz. She had requested the employees be available the week of January 3, 2006. Mr. Dershowitz informed her that the assistants are out of the country and would require additional time to locate them and make them available. Investigation Continues . ***************************NARR AT l VE # 31 ************************** ~ Reported By : MINOT, LORIS. 1/03/06 Entered By. : ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/03/06 On Thursday, 03/31/05, I started conducting surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At this point I observed at 1155 hours, a Tan Altima bearing FL tag A303~ in Roadway, Black SL bearing FL tag V55RF'W in drive, Tan Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in Roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in driveway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, At 1325 Hours I observed Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in drive and a White Kia car bearing FL tag D651BQ. At 1615 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic, X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy Suburban in drive, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a White Kia car D651BQ in roadway. On Friday, 04/01/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 1130 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic bearing FL tag X98APM in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Tan unknown make/model bearing FL tag A303AN in roadway. At 1227 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Black Chevy SUV located behind the Escalade. At 1345 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Chevy SUV in driveway. At 1558 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway, Black Chevy SUV in driveway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a dark unknown model/make car parked in garage. On Saturday, 04/02/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 0713 hours, I observed a Red Explorer bearing FL tag J98JEI in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 0814 hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway and a Tan Honda Civic X98APM. At 0952 hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, Black Caddy Escalade in driveway, Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and also a Grey unknown make/model with a B.M in trunk retrieving landscaping tools. At 1155 hours, I observed a Grey Camara bearing FL tagf ---- ■ parking in the roadway in front of 358 El Brillo. A W/F, blond hair, teens to early 20 1 s, thin and tall wearing a white tank top and short blue jean shorts, exited the vehicle and walked to the rear of the house. I also observed a Red Explorer J9BJEI in roadway, Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway . At 1310 hours, I GIUFFRE000069 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 26 of 45 --------- ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7/19 / 06 Time: 15:01 : 37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 69 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ::ase No . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) observed a Red Explorer W/F driver leaving the area , Tan subcompact on roadway and a Red Neon bearing FL tag I [. Then observed 3 W/Fs, approximately 16 to 18 years of age jogging. All 3 females ran into the driveway. There were 2 with blond hair and one brown hair. On Sunday, 04/03/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 0719 hours I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade. At 0934 hours, I observed a Tan Honda Civic X98APM in roadway and a Black Caddy Escalade in driveway. At 1057 hours I observed only the Tan Honda Civic X98APM. On Tuesday, 04/05/05, I continued surveillance at 358 El Brillo. At 10?2 . hours, I observed a Red Explorer J98JEI in roadway, a Green Explorer, bearing FL tag F91KAK in roadway, a Grey Altima bearing FL tag A303AN in roadway, White Ford Truck H58LRA in roadway, Black Mercedes in driveway being washed by a B/M and an unknown dark car parked in the garage. At 1059 hours a Blue Chevy Suburban drove to the house of 358 El Brillo and parked in the driveway. At 1119 hours, I observed the White Fort Truck H58LRA leave the area and the drive was the pool man. At 1126 hours, I observed a Grey unknown make/model car park in roadway . W/M got out of the car and walked to a house on the south side of El Brillo. At 1406 hours, I observed a Red Explorer parked on roadway and a large white box truck parked behind the surveillance suburban . t************************** NARRATIVE # 32 ******* ******************* ~ Reported By: BATES, MICHAEL J. 1/ 03 / 06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/ 03 / 06 on 03/31/05, at approximately 1500 hours while conducting surveillance at 358 El Brillo, I observed a Black Cadillac Escalade, unknown tag, a Black Chevrolet Suburban, unknown tag, a Black Mercedes 8600 FL tag U90BQL parked in the east driveway next to the 3-car garage. There was a Tan Honda Civic FL tag X98APM parked on the street in front of the residence. At approximately 170 0 hours, I observed the Black Suburban , Black Escalade, Black Mercedes and Tan Honda Civic parked in the same place. At 1750 hours, there was no change in vehicles. At 1840 hours, I observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban and Black Mercedes along with a Silver Hyundai Accent FL tag Al36AN all parked in the east driveway and a Red Ford Explorer FL tag J98JEI parked on the street in front of the residence. At 2000 hours, I observed the Black Escalade, Black Suburban parked in the ease driveway and the Red Explorer and Tan Civic parked on the street . On Friday , 04 / 01/05 at approximately 170 0 hours , I observed the Black GIUFFRE000070 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 27 of 45 -- ---------------------------------------------------------~------------------ ate: 7 /19/06 ime: 15: 01: 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 70 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~se No . . .. : 1-05-000368 (Continued) Escalade and Black Suburban parked in the east driveway and the Tan Honda Civic parked on the street in front of the residence. At 1820 hours, I observed the Suburban and Civic in the same place and a Gold Chevrolet Camaro FL tag p,arked on the street in front of the residence. At 2250 there was no change . At 2330, I observed the Black Escalade parked in the driveway and the Red Explorer parked on the street in front of the residence. On Saturday, 04/02/05 at approximately 1700 hours , I observed a Black Escalade, unknown tag, parked in the driveway and a Tan Honda Civic FL tag X98AMP parked in the street in front of the residence. At 1805 hours the Escalade and Civic were in the same position and the Black Mercedes FL tag U90BQL was also parked in the east driveway. At 192 0 hours the Escalade and Civic were the only vehicles and both were in the same position. At 2030 hours and 2145 hours there were no vehicles observed. At 2115 hours, I observed a Black Mercedes, 4-door parked in the east driveway FL tag Gl4CT. At 2300 hours, 2350 hours and 0045 hours, the Black Mercedes was the only vehicle observed. **************************NARRATIVE # 33 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 1/05/06 Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1/05/06 I made contact with Mr. father of who was told that I wished to interview his daughter. Mr. J stated he was aware ~nd had spoken with his daughter about the incident. He stated that his daughter had previously told him that she was hired to model lingerie at a Palm Beach mansion. Mr. stated he knew nothing else about what she did when she went to "work." Mr. 4al advised be would cooperate with the investigation and make his daugl'fcer available for interviews. I asked if she was available f~rfan indthe:vie 1 w, J 1 d k£stated sthe,whashnot at ho 1 met at ~he moment. I in orrne im wou ma e contac wit er at a a er time . Mr . ..._.expressed hi.s interest in the resolution in this matter as he~ this information has affected his daughter emotionally. On January 4, 2005, I acquired the subpoenas from the State Attorney ' s Office for Cingular Wireless, Metro PCS, Verizon, Bell South Telecommunications and Sprint for the unknown telephone numbers from Sarah Kellen's cellular telephone . The subpoenas were sent to the respective telephone carriers for subscriber information. I received a telephone call from State Attorney's Office, who informed me that the former houseman for Jeffrey Epstein, Alfredo Rodriguez, was present at the State Attorney's Office for an interview. Rodriguez was issued an investigative subpoena for an interview on the on-goings at Epstein's house during his employ. I responded to the State Attorney's Office and encountered Mr. Rodriguez waiting in the lobby , I brought Mr. Rodriguez to the interview room . GIUFFRE00007 l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 28 of 45 ----------------------------------~--------------------------------------- -· ---- Date: 7/ 19/06 Time: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 71 Program: CMS301L ------------ ----------------- ----------------------------------------------- -- :ase No . . . : 1-05 - 0003 68 (Continued) During a sworn taped statement , Mr. Rodriguez stated he was employed by Jeffrey Epstein for approximately six months. He was referred by associates and his employment lasted the months of November 2004 through May 2005. His responsibilities as house manager included being the butler, chauffer, chef, houseman , run errands for Mr. Epstein and provide for Epstein 1 s guests. Rodriguez advised he had very limited contact with Mr. Epstein. If Rodriguez needed to relay a message to Mr. Epstein, he would have to notify Epstein's secretary "Leslie" in New York City, who would then notify Epstein's personal assistant, Sarah, who would relay the message to Epstein. Rodriguez stated Epstein did not want to see or hear the staff when he was in residence. I asked Rodriguez if Epstein received many guests during his stay in Palm Beach. Rodriguez advised he had many guests. I asked specifically about masseuses coming to the house. Rodriguez stated he would have two massages a day. Epstein would have one massage in the morning and one massage in the afternoon everyday he was in residence. Rodriguez stated he would be informed to expect someone and make them comfortable until either Sarah or Epstein would meet with them. Rodriguez stated once the masseuses would arrive, he would allow them entry into the kitchen area and offer them something to drink or eat. They would then be encountered by either Sarah or Epstein. They would be taken upstairs to provide the massage. I asked Rodriguez if any of the masseuses appeared young in age, He advised he didn't ask their ages but felt they were very young. Rodriguez stated they ate like his own daughter who is in high school. Rodriguez stated they would eat tons of cereal and drink milk all the time. Rodriguez stated the girls that would come appeared to be too young to be masseuses. He stated one time un4er E&stein 1 s direction, he delivered a dozen roses to J I for one of the girls that came to provide a massage. He knew the girls were still in high school and were of high school age. I asked Rodriguez about the massages. He felt there was a lot more going on than just massages. He would clean Mr. Epstein 1 s bed.room after the alleged massages and would discover massager/vibrators and sex toys scattered on the floor . He also said he would wipe down the vibrators and sex toys and put them away in an arrnoire. He described the armoire as a small wood armoire which was on the wall close to Epstein's bed. Epstein ordered Rodriguez to go to the Dollar rent a car and rent a car for the same girl he brought the roses to , so that she could drive her self to Epstein's house without incident. Rodriguez said the girl always needed rides to and from the house. Rodriguez referred himself as a "human ATM machine" and was ordered by Epstein to maintain a minimum balance of $2,000 dollars on him at all times. When a girl would come by the house and Mr. Epstein was either not in residence or was not at home at the time, Rodriguez was to provide the girl (masseuse) several hundred dollars for their time and to notify Epstein the amount they were given . Epstein also ordered Rodriguez to GIUFFRE000072 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 29 of 45 --------------------------------~·-----------------------~--------------------- )ate : 7 / 19 / 0 6 'ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 72 Program: CMS301L ----- ------~ ----------~---------------------------------------~---------- -- :ase No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) purchase several gifts and provide them as tips to the girls. I asked what kind of gifts. Rodriguez stated he purchased IPODS, jewelry, anything the girls would want. Rodriguez stated the amount of girls that came to the house was approximately fifteen. Each of the girls knew each other and all seemed to know at -•••••••■•■•••••who Mr. Epstein was . When asked to identify these girls, Rodriguez stated he could not at the moment but knew he wrote their names down on a journal he kept during his employ with Mr. Epstein. He kept a journal in the event he needed to explain either to Mr. Epstein or his assistants what was done at the house or who visited the house as he stated he was in-charge of Mr. Epstein's personal security while in Palm Beach. I informed him I would need to view this journal to which he stated he would research the book and contact me to provide the book. The interview was concluded and left the area. I returned back to the police station where the micro cassette was placed into evidence. At approximately 7:20 pm, I was notified Rodriguez located the journal and would call me on January 5 , 2005 to provide the journal . Investigation Continuesaa •**************************NARRATI V E # 34 ************************** , Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 1/09/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/10/06 On January 5 , 2006 , I attempted to meet with Alfredo Rodriguez to recover the folder or journal in which he kept the notes that were given to him during his employ with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. He kept this folder to justify what he did during his employ should the need arise to justify what occurred with the monies he had to keep or any questions as to the petty cash he withdrew from the household account from the bank. At approximately 10:00 pm, I attempted contact with Mr. Rodriguez and discovered he was assisting his wife at her place of employment and would not be able to meet with me. Mr. Rodriguez stated he would meet with me on January 6, 2006, in Broward County, in the morning hours" On January 6 , 2006, at approximately 9 ; 00 am, I received a telephone call from Mr. Rodriguez who advised he had the file in hand and would be traveling northbound to meet with me in Broward County. At 10:50 am, I met with Alfredo Rodriguez at the parking lot of Bank of America in Boca Raton on Yamato Road and Military Trail (known as the Polo Center). Rodriguez produced a green folder which contained documents , a note with Mr. Epstein's stationary with direction to deliver a bucket of roses to . after ~ £ J high school drama performance. Also in that same note was direction to rent a car for•••···and direction to extend the rental contract. I returned to the Palm Beach Police Station and placed the folder into evidence. I received a fax from Verizon from the subpoena request sent on GIUFFRE000073 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 30 of 45 --~--------------------------------------------------------------------------- :i.te: 7/19/06 ime: 15:01 : 37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page : 73 Program: CMS301L --------- --- ------------------- ------------------------------------------- -- -- :i.se No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued) 01-04 - 06, for telephone number 561-3 02-1844 . The phone number is registered to Dr Perry Bard, from West Palm Beach. Dr. Bard is a chiropractor and has an office.located 4275 Okeechobee Blvd in West Palm Beach . The cellular number is Dr Bard ' s personal cellular number . On January 9 , 2006 , Det. Caristo and I traveled to 622 Holly Drive in Palm Beach Gardens in an attempt to locate Johanna Sjoberg, who had been previously seen on the property and identified through her Florida Drivers License and Florida license Plate. A business card was left for her to return my call. We then traveled to the ■- ~. & RY--FT p and located i • T -i] -• t agreed to speak wib u s and in a private room within the school provided us a taped statement . During the statement, advised that when she was fifteen or sixteen years of age, she was taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house by her associate,••••••• til■■■~stated this occurred lat e May 2004 or early June 2004. She was told she could model lingerie for money for a wealthy Palm Beacher. She remembered they traveled by yellow cab from their residence in West Palm Beach to Epstein ' s house. She remembered encountering Epstein at the front door during the evening hours. He introduced himself and brought them into the kitchen so that the chef could prepare something for them to eat . After having a meal, and Epstein broughtlll■■9 upstairs to a master bedroom which had a large bathroom. She observed a large style shower, sauna and there was a large massage bed also in the bathroom . Epstein entered a room within the bathroom and came out wearing only a towel. said they would provide a massage on his feet. L § j asked why they are doing this. ~ told her this was part of the routine and told her to rub hi~and calves . Epstein had told to get comfortable . ._..... continued rubbing Epstein I s ·calves and feet, At Epstein's direction, then left the room leaving there by herself. Epstein told to get comfortable. removed her blouse and pants a~d stayed in her panties. ■-■istated she was not wearing a bra. She believed she was wearing thong panties. Epstein turned over onto his back and began touching her. Epstein touched her breasts and began touching her in her vagina area. Epstein instructed her to rub his chest and rub his nipples. stated the touching consisted over the panties on the first time; he stroked her vagina but stayed on top of the panties. During the first massage, she stated Epstein was stroking her and began masturbating himself at the same time. He put his hands under the towel and appeared as to masturbate himself however she never saw his penis . She continued rubbing his chest until he grabbed her and pulled her closer to him . He appeared to have climaxed because after he pulled her closer to him the massage was over. Epstein had told her that there was two hundred dollars for her on the dresser. He told her that she could not tell anyone what happened at the house or bad things could happen. ■•■~stated she went to Epstein ' s house three GIUFFRE000074 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 31 of 45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ ate: 7/ 19/06 'ime : 15 : o 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 74 Program: CMS301L -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ase No .. . . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) or t our times • total. ~u-Q was very scared and felt very nervous . She knew because of Epstein's money he was powerful. After the massage, Epstein ordered his houseman at the time to drive the girls home . The employee was to drop off the girls at their house and watch them go inside their house. could not remember who the houseman was. She stated Epstein and his assistant Sarah would call her at her father 1 s house to arrange for her to come and 11 work. 11 She advised each time she returned to the house, Epstein would do the same thing. ■■■•stated it was a routine with Epstein. She would rub his feet and calves. He would then turn over and begin to touch her on her vagina area. The only difference was that it was done without panties. Epstein's fingers would stroke her vagina area as he would masturbate and finally climax and the massage would be over. She was paid $200.00 each time she went. Each time she went she was reminded not to speak of what happened at the house and that she would be contacted again. She began to purposely miss the calls when either Sarah or Epstein would call her . She once brought a friend , ~ unknown last name, to work for Epstein. She was paid $2 00 . 00 for bringi1ig $ stated she no longer retuned to work for Epstein. She also stated that she wanted to notify the police of what happened at the house. } stated she was scared of what could have happened to her or her ~~mily if she notified authorities . number is assigned to Mr. ···•• I, father in 9 ■ , I also received the results from Western Union which confirmed the money order sent to•••• .... •••~frorn Jeffrey Epstein in New York City. The 11 wire 11 was sent by Jeffrey Epstein of 457 Madison Ave in New York City on December 23, 2004 at 12:05 pm. The amount of $222 . 00 was charged to Epstein's credit card so that • could receive $200 . 00 in••••••••• The twenty-two dollars was for processing and local fees to send the money via Western Union . A copy of the check presented to~ was also attached to the receipt of the wire . This confirmed what advised she received as a Christmas bonus from Epstein . Investigation continues. ********** * ******** *******NARRATIVE .# 35 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH Entered By.: ALTOM.ARO , NICKIE A. 1/10/06 1/10/06 I received and reviewed the Cingular Wireless results from the subpoena requests for subscriber information for telephone numbers 561-818-8361, 561-389-6874 and 561-309-0079 . The first number, 561-818-8361, is assigned to Janusz Banasiak in care of Jeffrey Epstein of 457 Madison Ave in New York City. Banasiak is the current houseman/house manager for 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Fl 33480 . The second number , 561 - 389-6874 , is assigned to Christina Venero of G!UFFRE000075 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 32 of 45 -----------------------------------------------------------------------~------ •ate: 7/ 19 / 06 'ime: 15: 01: 37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 75 Program: CMS301L ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ase No .... : l-05-000368 (Continued) 1685 61st Drive in West Palm Beach . Research conducted on Venero revealed she is a licensed Massage therapist with a Florida conditional/active license number MA39723. Venero had been previously arrested for battery/ unwanted touching and DUI. Requests for copies of the reports involving the arrests were requested from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. The last number 561-309-0079 is assigned to Thomas Rofrano of 9850 Alt AlA in Palm Beach Gardens. Research on Mr. Rofrano, revealed that he is a Florida Chiropractic Physician . Vehicles that were previously documented on the property while surveillance was being conducted were researched. I determined a tan Chevrolet Camaro, bearing Florida license••••• was seen on the property in which a young white female was seen entering the Epstein property. Research was conducted which revealed that the vehicle is registered to of . . Mr. ••ahas two daughters, -------... ~ an • is currently residing in and ■••-- is residing with her father in? 73 ...... Research on --••-~evealed she was recently involved ~raffic stop in Lake Clarke Shores in May 19, 2005. A request to discover any information from the stop was requested. I spoke with ASA Daliah Weiss who informed me that Janusz Banasiak will be available for an interview tomorrow at the State Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach at 1:30 pm. I informed her that! would be at her office for the interview. **************************NARRATI V E # 36 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 1/23 /06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 1/23 /06 On January 19, 2006, Det. Caristo and I met with Johanna Sjoberg at 622 Holly Drive in Palm Beach Gardens. Sjoberg was identified as a licensed massage therapist who had previously been seen on Epstein's property when physical surveillance was done. Sjoberg was told of the on going investigation and I felt she may have information pertaining to the case. During a sworn taped statement, Sjoberg stated she met Epstein three years ago when Ghaline Maxwell approached her while she was attending Palm Beach Atlantic College to work around Epstein's house. Maxwell had told her that they needed some girls to work at the house to answer phones and run errands. Sjoberg accepted the job and began working at Epsteints house on El Brillo in Palm Beach, Sjoberg stated it was a part time job during the time she went to Palm Beach Atlantic College. She continued going to Epstein's house and would be notified when Epstein would travel to Palm Beach. Sjoberg advised she would be notified by Maxwell, Epstein or Sarah, his assistant, when he would travel to Palm Beach. Sjoberg stated she began providing massages to Epstein before she became a massage therapist. She continued giving massages not only to Epstein but to Nadia Marcinkova, and Sarah, his assistant . Sjoberg was asked about what occurred during the massages. Sjoberg stated as she was twenty GIUFFRE000076 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 33 of 45 -----------·------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1te: 7/19/06 Lme : 15: 01 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 76 Program: CMS301L ~------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- i. s e No . 1 - 05-000368 (Continued) three years old when she met Epstein, anything that happened was between two consenting adults. I explained to her that she was not in any trouble however as part of this investigation, I needed to ask certain questions. Sjoberg stated that there were times that Epstein would ask her to perform during the massage . He would instruct her to rub his nipples as he masturbated himself . Sjoberg stated she felt "grossed" about the behavior but as she was getting paid, she just continued. Sjoberg also advised she would on occasion perform the massages naked. Epstein would on occasion, utilize the vibrator/massager on her vagina area when she performed the massages. Sjoberg explained that Epstein never exposed himself to her as he maintained himself covered under the towel he would be wearing. When Epstein would masturbate he would be covered. I asked if Sjoberg ever received any gifts, or any gratuities from Epstein . Sjoberg advised aside from being paid well, she advised Epstein took care of her tuition from Palm Beach Atlantic College , She received a rental car for a week when her scooter broke down. Additionally she received other gifts from Epstein. Epstein also recommended her to another client who resides at Breakers Row in Palm Beach .. The client she was referred to was 11 Glenn 11 unknown last name, and his wife, who she provided a massages to . The statement was concluded and placed into evidence upon cur return to the Palm Beach Police Depart~ent. While at the police station , I researched Florida tag which was also previously seen on the property when there was physical surveillance being done at the property. The vehicle.is ,registered to 1 I •---of 4-----·-·- Researching Mr. - f and the vehicle revealed that his daughter, •••• 9111 had been driving the vehicle and was cited for unlawful speed in Lake Clark Shores. The vehicle is a tan, Chevrolet Camaro, 2-door. I researched I / date of birth I ,-·. :rm .. , resides at • - & has a my space page called in www.myspace . com'1II••••• In her web page, shows various photos of i photographed at a beach. An interview is forthcoming. A review of the video disks which was extracted at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Computer Crime Unit revealed that only one hidden camera was functional at the time. Several images of Epstein working at his office were seen. Additional footage of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova was seen. There was other footage of females seen. The identity of the females is unknown at this time, until such time as I meet with certain females to show the video footage to confirm if, in. fact, it is them on the video. At this time it appears that ■ and Haley Robson are seen sitting with Epstein beside his desk in the evening hours. Due to poor lighting , a direct confirmation cannot be made at this time . Inv _ Continues . GIUFFRE000077 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 34 of 45 --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >ate : 7 / 19 / 0 6 'i me : 1 5 : 0 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 77 Program: CMS301L -------------------------------------~---------~~------------------------------ 'ase No . . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued} ***************************NARRATIVE # 37 ************************** A Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. On January 25, 2006, Det Caristo and I, responded to._. in••--•••and met with••■--••• ••• stated last year, when she was seventeen years of age, she met Jeffrey Epstein through her former room mate~ •••was allegedly dating 1/30/ 06 1/30/06 Epstein at the time. arn V & had once cohabitated together when they modeled. explained I called her on her telephone and advised her that she was in Palm Beach and requested to see her. made arrangements to meet with her at Epstein's house. arrived and met Epstein andlll•• and•••went to the Palm Beach Mall together and went shopping , advised thata••and she had received money from Epstein to go to the mall. They visited Victoria's Secret and purchased undergarments from the store utilizing monies given by Epstein. ••• advised she purchased one item and purchase various items , The money used to purchase the items was the money given by Epstein. and continued shopping and having a day together. stated•••-explained how she and Epstein have been dating each other and he has been paying all of her bills. ••• claimed••• advised they met in New York and had been dating ever since. They later returned to Epstein's home and encountered Epstein. He had a brief conversation with about her modeling career. He knew of her modeling career from He requested to see her modeling portfolio and explained that he could help her with modeling jobs. ■ -had her book with her to showd!lll-•and showed the book to Epstein. He commented negatively about her photographs and portfolio . felt uncomfortable with the comments made as she had been working with other professional modeling companies who had offered her work from her photographs, Epstein requested to see what was purchased at the mall. ••• took out the undergarments which were purchased. She immediately showed Epstein different sets purchased. Epstein then requested to view what9 •• purchased. ••• was reluctant to show"'the• -out~E,i,t however since it was Epstein's money that purchased the item, she pulled it out of the bag. Epstein asked her to try it on. ••• looked attl- iwho told her 11 yeah, try it on. 11 Feeling compelled to try the undergarment outfit on; she went to another room and put on the bra and panty set. She walked out to the living room where they were sitting, and modeled the suit. She then went back into the other room and changed back into her clothes. ■ I returned into the room and told ••• she would be going home. scheduled another day for••• to return for massages with her. stated within that same week, she returned to meet with and have a massage . · I had told her that she would be unable to stay with her as she would be going on a bike ride with Epstein . explained she could stay at the house and take advantage of the massage . GIUFFRE000078 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 35 of 45 ------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----- ----------- ,ate: 7/19/06 'ime: 15: O 1: 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 78 Program: CMS301L ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ase No. . : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued ) stated she met with an unknown massage therapist and had the table already set up in a guest room . ■■•removed her clothing, leaving her panties on, and wrapped herself with a towel for the massage. ••■► remembered that the door to the guest room was closed but not locked. As the therapist was working her back, the door was opened by Epstein and entered into the room . 4••twas trying to conceal herself as Epstein was talking to her about his chiropractic session. Epstein told••• turn over onto her back . eventually turned over exposing her breasts to Epstein as he applied pressure on her shoulder and her waist. ••• stated Epstein "popped " her back. removed her self from the table , got dressed and left the house. further stated••• had attempted to call her on several occasions to invite her back to Epstein 1 s house to which replied "l 'm busy. 11 ••• advised she has not had contact with either or Jeffrey Epstein. It should be noted that her mother , was present during the interview . The interview was concluded and we thanked them her for their time ·**************************NARRATIVE # 38 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , J OSEPH 1/31/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 1/31/06 on January 2 7 , 2006 , I made telephone contact with Christina Venero , at 772 - 878-728 0 . Venero is a licensed massage therapist who had frequented the home of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms . Venero has been unable to meet with me in Palm Beach County, and because she lives and works in Por t St Lucie, a telephone interview was conducted. I explained to Ms. Venero that there was an on going investigation involving Jeffrey Epstei n. Venero stated she knows Epstein and has been employed by him for approximately three years . Epstein has paid Venero to perform Swedish Massages (Deep Tissue) on him and other guests. Venero explained that approximately three year ago she met Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein through a mutual friend. Epstein and Maxwell were looking for a massage therapist. Venero stated since that time, she is notified when Epstein is corning to Palm Beach. Venero stated she comes to his house and provides the massage or massages. Venero explained she has also massaged his guests and assistants. Venero continued that she is paid $100.00 and hour for the massage. I asked Venero if anything occurred during the massage that would have rh acte· her feel uncomfortable . Venero stated she only provided massages and th,at was it. She never was approached for anything else . I asked if Epstein ever asked her to rub his chest she stated she would not rub his chest as that is not part of her massage. Venero explained that she was not Epstein 1 s type. The girls she would see at Epstein's house were very thin, beautiful and without tattoos . Venero explained she has several tattoos that are visible . Maxwell and Epstein have commented negatively about her tattoos previously when she has provided massages. GlUFFRE000079 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 36 of 45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ate: 7/19/06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 79 Program: CMS301L ------------------------------------------------------------------~----------- 3.se No. . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) Venero stated she only provided massages for Epstein and his associates and nothing happened during those massages. Venero stated as she does Swedish style massages, the patient is usually sore after the massages. I thanked her for her assistance and the interview was concluded at this time. I received a facsimile from T-Mobile Cellular service on telephone number 561-317-5844, which is assigned to David Rodgers, pilot for Mr. Epstein, who resides in Lake Worth. Rodgers' telephone number was dialed on several occasions by Sarah Kellen. A background on Rodgers indicated he has a valid FAA pilot license First Class for the Southern FAA Region. Rodgers has another historical FAA license for Airline Transport Pilot . Investigation Continues . **************************NARRATIVE # 39 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 2/ 14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 2 / 16/06 on Friday, February 3, 2006, I had made arrangements to meet with Joanna Harrison at the Palm Beach Police Station . At approximately 1 : 00pm, Harrison and her friend, Victoria Bean arrived at the police station . During an interview with Harrison, she stated she met Epstein when she turned eighteen years old and was brought to Epstein's house to provide a massage . She advised this occurred on May of 2005. She advised Haley Robson had informed her if she wanted to provide a massage for $200.00 . Harrison agreed and was brought to Epstein's house to provide a massage. Harrison stated she had been to the house on many occasions during the massage sessions. Harrison also stated she would remove her clothing to provide the massage on Epstein . Harrison advised Epstein would pay her $300.00 to rub his back, legs and chest. During the massages, Epstein would masturbate himself as she rubbed his chest. I asked her if Epstein ever touched her breasts during the massages. Harrison replied. ''Yes. 11 I asked her if Epstein ever touched or massaged her vagina. Harrison stated he had on several occasions. I asked her if he ever penetrated her with either his penis or any other objects. Harrison stated that during a massage he inserted his fingers in her vagina as she massaged him. She stated this occurred one time only. Harrison stated the massage would be over when Epstein would climax onto a towel. I asked Harrison if she had any formal massage training to which she replied that she did not. Harrison was then asked if she ever brought anyone to the house to "work." Harrison stated she brought two people to the house. She advised she received money for bringing people to the house to "work. 11 Harrison stated she brought a girl named M and her friend Tory Bean. Bean was still waiting for Harrison in the lobby of the police station. I thanked Harrison for her time and her cooperation and escorted her to the lobby . I asked Ms Bean if I could speak with her about this investigation . I GIUFFRE000080 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 37 of 45 --------------------------~------------------------------------- ------------- - :i.te: 7 / 19/06 ime: 15: 01: 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 80 Program: CMS301L ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- rne No. : 1 - 05-000368 (Continued) brought her to the interview room and explained to her that I was conducting an investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and felt she may have information pertaining to the investigation. Ms Bean identified herself as Victoria Bean and resides in Wellington, Florida. She advised approximately a year ago she was brought to Epstein's house to provide a massage for money. Bean stated she needed to make money and felt it was a quick way to make some money. Bean stated she was brought to the house by ~arrison and was introduced to Epstein and his assistant. She was brought to his main bathroom and provided a massage. I asked her if she provided the massage naked. Bean stated she did. She rubbed Epstein's legs, back and chest. I asked Bean if Epstein touched her during the massage. She advised he did not, howeyer he did masturbate himself as she rubbed his chest. Once he climaxed the massage was over. She was paid her money and left the area. Bean advised it occurred one time and she never returned to Epstein 1 s house. The interview was concluded and Bean was escorted to the lobby. I located a telephone number for and attempted to contact her on several occasions, I called .rw:rTT I nd spoke with Ms. ••• who advised she would speak with me in· i where she resides. Due to a scheduling conflict, we were unable to meet. I informed her I would contact her to schedule another appointment to speak with her about this investigation. I have attempted to meet with her and make telephone contact with negative results. On February 13 , 2006, I met with David Rodgers at 7318 Heathley Drive in Lake Worth, Rodgers was identified as Epstein ' s pilot. I spoke with Rodgers who advised he has been employed with Epstein since 1991 . He flies both planes for Epstein depending where he wants to fly to. Rodgers was asked about passengers in the plane he flies. Rodgers stated unless Epstein flew to his island off of St Thomas, there would be no way of knowing who the passengers were. I mentioned a recent flight to Ohio, where Rodgers flew to Ohio to pick up Rodgers stated he recalled flying on several occasions and did remember•••• Rodgers stated once he is in the cockpit, he does not knqw who the passengers are. When he prepares the passenger manifests, he lists Epstein and his assistants he knows by name, Sarah and Adrianna. Rodgers stated he would list either female or male passengers on the manifests only to keep a count on the passengers. Mrs. Rodgers came into the living room and recommended that her husband consult with an attorney. Mr. Rodgers agreed he would speak with the family attorney to inform him of this questioning. I explained to Mr. Rodgers that he was not the suspect in this investigation and ceased all questions. Based on the fact Rodgers could not advise who passengers were in the plane, I then left the area. I attempted to locate -at in IT ■ . I left my business card for her to return my call . On February 14, 2006 , at 12:06 pm, I received a call back from Ms, GIUFFRE00008 l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 38 of 45 ---- ---------------~-------------------------------------------------------- :1te : 7/19 / 06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 81 Program: CMS301L ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ :i.se No . . . : 1-05 - 000368 {Continued) on my voice mail Ms • left her telephone number for a return call 561-662-3098. I left her a message to return call. Investigation Continues .. **************************NARRATI V E # 40 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 2/21 / 06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 2/22 /0 6 On February 15, 2006, I made telephone contact with who provided directions to where I could locate her. Det Caristo· and I responded to 806 Old Dixie Hwy in Lake Park to meet with Upon my arrival, I met with••Win the parking lot directly behind MAACO Auto Painting. She was advised I was there to speak with her about an ongoing investigation that concerned Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach ..... stated she knows Epstein very well and did not want to speak with me about Mr . Epstein . She was very fond of Epstein and did not want to speak with me about anything concerning Jeffrey Epstein. I explained to her that she was seen at the house and I would like to speak with her. She stat~d she knew there was an investigation and that I had spoken with other people and therefore I should know what happened at Epstein's house . 1111 9 ended the conversation and walked back into ·her boyfriends business , Blanton Automotive. Det Caristo and I left the area and returned to the police station . Investigation continues. ********************* ****NARRATI V E # 41 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 4 / 1 0/ 06 Entered By .: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A.. 4 / 1 0/0 6 A Grand Jury Session was requested during t he month of February 2006 , in which all the girls that had been interviewed would have b e en called to testify before the Grand Jury to seek an indictment against Jeffrey Epstein. Due to subsequent meetings with the State Attorney ' s Office and Defense Attorney Alan Dershowitz the Grand Jury was postponed until a later time . Dershowitz had provided a package of material on the main victims in this case in which they appear on myspace . com and speak about alcohol use and some marijuana use. The State Attorney's Office wanted time to review the material . I requested additional subpoenas from the State Attorney ' s Office in which I requested information from Dollar Rent a Car and Jet Aviation. The information requested from Dollar Rent a Car was for the rented vehicle by Alfredo Rodriguez while under the employ of Epstein for one of the victims. The other subpoena requested was for Jet Aviation for d ates and times when Epstein's planes were in Palm Beach County . I con tinued to research other names that were acquired either from interviews or intelligence gathered during the investigation . I GIUFFRE000082 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 39 of 45 --- ----~----------------------------------------~----------------------------- :lte: 7 / 19/06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 82 Program: CMS301L -----------------~~ -----------------~------------- ------------------------- ;1.se No. . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) located •••■- in ■~ I responded to in £ .. • During the interview, •rz■ ] stated she knew I would be speaking with her. ••••• stated she was first introduced to Epstein when she turned eighteen years old. SI stated ~_he was sure of her age as it was her senior year in . · m- ■ 11 7 She advised she was brought there to money and was told she would have to provide a massage to this Palm Beach guy. She remembered she met Epstein and his assistant Sarah in the kitchen area. She stated she was taken by one of her friends, 1 a She stated she went upstairs with Sarah while Epstein got ready for the massage. He exited his bathroom naked and • turned around. Epstein asked her if being naked offended her. stated it made her uncomfortable. Epstein then put on a towel and lay on the table, ■-■II stated she rubbed his back and feet. She stated she had no massage training or experience. 4 H W stated during the massage, Epstein attempted to touch her buttocks. Fl] [ pulled away as he touched her buttocks. She told him again she was uncomfortable with him touching her. Epstein then cut the massage short and became upset with her. Epstein paid her $200.00 for the massage and told her to leave the house. never returned to the house. She did advise of one time she went with 1111[ I 5 Ts however she waited in the car for as she did not want to go into the house. At the conclusion of visit with Eps~~in they left the area .. 5 T stated she had heard from other girls that have gone to the house that Epstein now required them to do the massage naked and allow him to touch them in their private areas for monies. The interview was concluded as 5 • IM did not have any other information to provide. I then learned from the original victim,~ the defense attorney had learned of her identity. I spoke with the father of the victim, who stated there has been a private investigator on his house photographing his family and chasing visitors who come to the house. He provided a Florida License of E79-4EH. This vehicle is registered to Ivan Robles of West Palm Beach. Robles is a private investigator intern who is licensed by the state. I informed the State Attorney's Office of the above information. I received the Grand Jury subpoenas to be delivered to three victims for a Grand Jury session to be held on April 18 , through April 20 , 2006. Investigation continues . t************************ NARRATIVE # 42 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 4 / 14 / 06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 4 / 18 / 06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to. On April 5, 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m. , I personally served the parents of4ilawho had informed me that the private investigators were still photographing the family. On April GIUFFRE000083 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 40 of 45 --- - - ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 'lte: 7/ 19 / 06 ime : 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 83 Program: CMS301L ·---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ lse No . : 1-05 - 000368 (Continued) 10, 2006, at approximately 2: 3 o p ,.m., I servedllllll,at her residence in The subpoena was given to her mother, ... I learned through one of the victims ~ that she was personally contacted through a source that has maintained contact with Epstein. The source assured .. she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement. ■· ,J.so stated she was told, 11 Those who help him will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with . 11 I told•••that tampering with a witness/victim is an arrestable offense and very serious. I asked her who approached her during this encounter. -originally was reluctant to provide the name of the person who approached her to offer her not to testify because she felt they were still friends. on April 11, 2006, Det Dawson and I traveled to Tallahassee, Florida and met with the victim, ■ ... identified SffJ 2]5 W/F, ft ;;c; as the person who approached her in Royal Palm Beach while s e was home during Spring Break in March 2006.•••also stated she did not want to pursue the intimidation charges on--~ --was concerned that the defense attorney was given a copy of the report as certain things she had told me in confidence were repeated to her by Beal . Prior to our departure, the victim was given a copy of her subpoena for the Grand Jury which was scheduled to commence April 18, 2006 . Upon our return from Tallahassee, I notified the State Attorney's Office of what was told to me . I also notified them that the subpoenas were delivered to the witnesses and they would be calling for arrangements for the date and time needed for the Grand Jury. I spoke with AqA Weiss and informed her of the possible intimidation by the defense. on April 13, and April 14, 2006 I attempted contact on several occasions with ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic to ascertain when the victims needed to report for Grand Jury testimony. Messages were left on their voicemail. On April 17, 2006, during the hours of 9:00 am and 11:30 am, I again left messages for ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic for either of them to return my call as I had not heard from the State Attorney's Office as to the time and date of the Grand Jury. At approximately 12:30 pm, I went to the State Attorney's Office and located ASA Weiss and ASA Belohlavic in their offices . I entered ASA Belohlavic's office who informed me that she was going to return my call. She explained that an offer was made to the defense, Atty Guy Fronstin and Atty Alan Dershowitz. The offer is 1 count of Agg Assault with intent to commit a felony, five years probation, with adjudication withheld. Epstein would have to submit to psychiatric/sexual evaluation and no unsupervised visits with minors. When asked about the all the other victims, ASA Belohlavic stated that was the only offer made as to one victim,•111111' ASA Belohlavic cell phone rang and went to voice mail. She checked her voice mail and played the message on speaker. The caller identified himself as GIUFFRE000084 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 41 of 45 -------------~-------------------------------------------- --------------------- )ate : 7 / 19 / O 6 rime: 15:01: 37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 84 Program: CMS301L ·---- -- --------------- -- --------------------- ---------------------------- ~ase No . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued ) Atty Guy Fronstin and acknowledged the deal made between them. u Frons~in stated in the message, he spoke with his client, Jeffrey Epstein, and agreed to the deal. Fronstin asked to call off the grand jury as they would accept this deal. Belohlavic stated a probable cause would be needed to book Epstein in the county jail and would let me know as to when it would be needed . I explained my disapproval of the deal and not being consulted prior to the deal being offered. However I expressed that was only my opinion and the final approval would come from the Chief of Police. She explained to have Chief Reiter call Barry Krisher about the deal . I left the area and returned to the police station where I briefed the Chief about the deal offered. I checked my voice mail messages and discovered a message from stepmother for the victim~ She was calling because the State Attorney's Office still had not returned any of her calls as to when they are needed for this case _ I then called ASA Belohlavic's office and left messages for her to call the v i c tims on this case and explained to them what the State Attorney's Office had done . On April 17, 2006, at approximately 4:30 pm, State Attorney Investigator Tim Valentine called to officially notify me of the cancellation of the Grand Jury. He requested I contact the victims that had been served to appear, to notify them of the cancellation. I advised Valentine that as this Grand Jury session was called based on the State Attorney's Office decision to have the victims heard by the Grand Jury that I felt it was the States Attorney's Office responsibility to contact the victims and advise them of the reason they were no longer needed. •*************************NARRATI V E # 43 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 5/04/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 5/04/06 As I had not received any contact from anyone at the State Attorney's Office , on May 1, 2006, I piepared three arrest warrant requests and submitted them to the State Attorney's Office . The packages were delivered to the Crimes against Children Unit in care of ASA Lana Belohlavek . Jeffrey Epstein's arrest warrant was requested for 4 counts of Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one count of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation . Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant's, arrest warrant request was for 4 counts of Principal in the 1st degree Unlawful Sexual activity with certain minors and one count of Principal in the 1st degree Lewd and Lascivious Molestation . Haley Robson's arrest warrant request was for Lewd and Lascivious Acts on a victim under 16 years of age. The receipt of delivery was signed and brought back to the records division at the police department. on May 3 , 2 0 06, at approximately 2:54 pm, I received a telephone call from ASA Daliah Weiss on my cellular telephone . ASA Weiss advised she GIUFFRE000085 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 42 of 45 - --- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ate: 7 /19/06 ime: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 85 Program: CMS301L ------~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ase No. . . : 1 - 05- 000 368 (Continued} has been taken off the Jeffrey Epstein case because her husband is employed with Attorney Jack Goldberger. Attorney Goldberger is the attorney of record for Jeffrey Epstein. His previous attorney, Guy Fronstin, has been fired from representation. ASA Lana Belohlavek has been assigned the case. ASA Weiss stated she can no longer speak about the Epstein case with me . I thanked her for her telephone call . ASA Weiss further stated that ASA Belohlavek would be calling me . ~**************************NARRATIVE # 44 ************************** \ Reported By : RECAREY , JOSEPH 5 / 15/06 Entered By . : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. 5 / 15/06 On May 10, 2006 , information was received that Epstein ' s associate , Leslie Wexner , The Limited Inc, CEO's, plane had arrived in West Palm Beach, PBIA. The plane, a Gulfstream 4 bearing a N900LS registration , was on the tarmac at Galaxy Aviation. As Epstein had recently acquired the services of a new attorney, and the fact that Epstein's house is. currently under remodeling, it was believed that Epstein may be in Palm Beach. I conducted physical surveillance at the residence , 358 El Brillo Way. I observed a large construction crew conducting remodeling at the house. The contractor, David Norr, was observed driving a Ford Explorer, white in color. The vehicle has a Florida registration of F30QQF . Norr left Epstein's house and traveled north on County Road. Det Caristo and I conducted surveillance on Norr. Norr traveled to several construction sites and checked on certain jobs . Surveillance was discontinued on Norr and Det Caristo and I traveled to Galaxy Aviation. I observed the white plane with a blue stripe along the body and tail of the plane; the tail number was visible on the bottom of the tail, closer to the body of the plane. We maintained visual surveillance on the plane until 4:57 p.m., when a caravan of Cadillac Escalades drove onto the tarmac. We observed several people exit the vehicles and discovered that they were part of the executive team for Limited Inc . The executives were in Palm Beach County for an executive meeting for the day. They arrived in Palm Beach County on May 9, 2006 at 9:30 pm and were scheduled to leave on the 10th at 5:00 pm. On May 12, 2006, I met with ASA Lana Belohlavek at the State Attorney's Office. She explained that her boss, Barry Krischer , was requesting this case be taken to the Grand Jury again. I explained to her I had requested arrest warrants for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Haley Robson. I asked that she either issue the warrants or direct file, as so much time has elapsed since the original request to the Grand Jury . I explained that the Palm Beach Police Department had concluded the case in December of 2005 and has been waiting for the case to go forward . Belohlavek stated the original offer was again offered to the new defense attorney . She was waiting for their answer by Friday May 19, 2006. She stated she would advise me of the answer . t**** ********************* NARRATIVE # 45 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY , JOSEPH 6/05 / 06 GIUFFRE000086 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 43 of 45 --- -------- ---- -------- ------------------------------------------------------ ne : 7/19 / 06 ime : 15 : O 1 : 3 7 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 86 Program: CMS301L w- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- :tse No 1 - 05 - 000368 Entered By. : ALTOMARO , NICKIE A. (Continued) 6/06/06 on May 22, 2006, I received several phone calls throughout the day from Mr .... who stated he had been followed aggressively by a private investigator. Mr .• stated that as he drove to and from work and running errands throughout the county, the same vehicle was behind him running other vehicles off th~ road in an attempt not to lose sight of Mr. ••~:vehicle . I explained to him as Mr. Epstein had retained new legal council it was possible it would be new private investigators following him to observe his daily activities . I also explained to him that there was a meeting scheduled with ASA Lana Belohlavek and Attorney Jack Goldberger at Mr. Krischer's office scheduled on June 1, 2006 at 9:00 am . I attempted to call ASA Lana Belohlavek to inform her of the private investigators following Mr~owever ; she was on her vacation during the week of May 22 through May 30 2006. on May 23, 2006, I received other phone calls from Mr. and Mrs.-who advised they were able to acquire the private investigators license plate information. The subject following them was again driving very aggressively and caused Mrs .9it.o run off the road. Mrs ... stated the vehicle is a green Chevy Monte Carlo bearing Florida tag I35-XGA . The vehicle is registered to Zachary Bechard of Jupiter Florida . Bechard is employed with Candor Investigations from Jupiter, Florida. Bechard is a licensed Private Investigator in the State of Florida. Since the discovery of the threat made against one of the victims in this case ii , I requested subpoenas for all calls made to and received from. •••during the month of March 2006 for her cell phone and home phone. I had confirmed with Florida State University the exact dates of Spring Break for 2006. The Spring Break was from March 4, 2006 through March 12, 2006. I received a subpoena from Sprint/Nextel with all calls made during the month of March 2006 . I reviewed the 989 calls made and received during the month of March 2006. I observed on March 7, 2006, ••• made and received thirty five calls during that day . Date Time Seconds In/Out To/From 7-Mar-06 11:03 AM 492 Outbound 561XXXX 7-Mar-06 11: 16 AM 6 Inbound 561XXXX 7- Mar-06 11:22 AM 887.2 Inbound 561XXXX 7-Mar-06 11 : 37 AM 48 Outbound 9178553363 7- Mar - 06 11:39 AM 28.2 Inbound 212535683 1 7 - Mar- 06 12:02 PM 727 . 2 Inbound 2125356831 The table reflects the date of the calls, time of day (EST ) I duration GIUFFRE000087 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 44 of 45 ------------- ----------------------- --------------- ----------------------- tte : 7/19 / 06 .me: 15:01:37 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report Page: 87 Program: CMS301L -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- .se No. : 1- 05- 00036 8 ( Continued ) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from4'1•••phone. on March 7, 2006, at 11:03 am, ■ .. made a call to the victim .. which lasted 492 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact with'll ... at 11:22 am for 877.2 seconds (14 minutes and 6 seconds) . These sequences of calls were consistent with what the victim had described to me on the date of the intimidation. Immediately after speaking with the victim, L makes a call to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, which lasts for forty-e}~h~ seconds. A call is.then i1;1ffi~diatelr received, a tel7phone number re~istered to a Corporation affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein located at 457 Madison Ave in New York. An extensive computer check revealed 457 Madison Ave is a business address in which Epstein has his corporations assigned to. Epstein had corporation attorney, Darren Indyke, register the businesses and register himself as an agent . I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address. Finally, a third call is received by•■• at 1.2:02 pm from the same corporate number which lasts 12 minutes and 1 second. It should be noted that there is no further contact with either the victim during the month of March or April of 2006. I also noted that there was no further contact with Sarah Kellen or Jeffrey Epstein during the remainder of the month of March or April 2006. On June 1, 2006, ASA Lana Belohlavek telephoned me to inform me of the meeting that occurred with Atty. Jack Goldberger and her reference this case . She advised she would make her determination ,on whether to file on this case or not by Monday June 5 , 2006 . Inv Continues . ~************************NARRATI V E # 46 ************************** Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 7/12/06 Entered By . : ALTOM.ARO, NICKIE A. 7/12/06 On June 29, 2006, I had spoken to ASA Lana Belohlavic who informed me that the case would be sent to the Grand Jury for charges. She informed me that the grand jury would convene on July 19, 2006 to hear the Epstein case . Belohlavic stated State Attorney Barry Krisher made the determination to go the Grand Jury to hear the case. On July 12, 2006, I spoke with Mrs .... mother of the victim, - who inquired about the status of the case. I explained to her that I was told we would be going to the Grand Jury during the week of July 19 , 2006. She stated she had not been contacted as of yet by the State Attorney's Office for any information. I provided her wi th the telephone numbers to the State Attorney 1 s Office. Investigation continues . . . * * * * * * * ***** ** END OF REPORT*** * ********** * * * GIUFFRE000088 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 45 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 173-8 Filed 05/27/16 Page 45 of 45 Date/Time: 10/16/06 / 9:24:44 System: HTE Progrm: CHF004P Case Number: 1-05-000368 PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Narrative Print Page: 1 ***** ***********************NARRATIVE # 47 ************************** NA Reported By: RECAREY, JOSEPH 8/03/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 8/03/06 On July 18, 2006, I received a Grand .Jury letter to appear before the Grand Jury on July 19, 2006, reference the Jeffrey Epstein case. On July 19, 2006, I responded to the Grand Jury Room and testified before the grand jury. At the conclusion , ASA Belohlavec stated the grand jury returned with a true bill for Felony Solicitation of Prostitution. On July 25, 2006 , Epstein turned himself into the county jail and was released on a $3 , 000 bond. Epstein is to return for arraignment on August 25, 2006 at 8:45 am. ATT POLICE CLERKS: Please show this case cleared by arrest with the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein W/M 01-20-1953. ** End of Report** GIUFFRE000089 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-13 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 45 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 From: Sent: To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Monday, January 12, 2015 10:03 AM Gmax you can issue a reward to any of virginias friends acquaionts family that come forward and help prove her allegations are false the strongest is the clinton dinner, and the new version in the virgin isalnds that stven hawking partica-ted in an underage orgy please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved 1 ' EXHIBIT ; Mu\/~d{? 1'7 I 1-22.-1 b 1,-f PRIVILEGED GM __ 001065 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 CONFIDENTIAL GM_00577 From: Sent: To: Subject: Ghislaine Some helpful leakage ... Ross Gow < ross@acuityreputation.com > Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:36 AM G Max; Philip Barden VR cried rape - prior case dismissed as prosecutors found her 'not credible' In today's Daily Mail print edition and on web vvww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965360/Prince-Andrew-s-sex-slave-accused-two-tcens-rape-three-years￾joincd-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-harem.html and www.nydailynews.com/ news/worJd/sex-slave-prince-andrew-accused-2-men-rape-1998-article-1.2125569 Mom told a detective "about her daughte r's past dmg abuse and also how many kids in Royal Palm Beach are involved in drngs, witchcraft and animal sacrifice," according to a confidential repo1t by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. best Ross Ross Gow Managing Partner ACUITY Reputation 23 Berkeley Square London WI J 6HE +44 (0) 777 875 5251 mob +7 903 363 5393 MocKBa Mo6nnbHb1fr www.acuityreputation.com The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is intended solely for tbc attention and use of the named addrcsscc(s). If you arc not the intended recipient, dissemination, copying or use of this e-mail and any attachments in whole or in part is prohibited. If you have received the e-ma.il in error. please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments from your computer system. Whilst any attachments may have been checked for viruses, you should rely on your own vims checker and procedures. No responsib ility is accepted by ACUITY Reputation Limited for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-14 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 1 2/12/2015 6:14 Virginia Giuffre smccawley@bsfllp.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards and Cassell re attorney impressions and legal advice relating to deposition testimony AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 2 2/16/2015 1:05 StanPottinger@aol.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br ad@pathtojustice.com,robie jennag@y7mail.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 3 2/16/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 4 2/16/2015 16:15 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 5 2/16/2015 16:24 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 6 2/16/2015 16:24 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 7 2/21/2015 16:45 Sigrid McCawley StanPottinger@aol.com,bra d@pathtojustice.com,cassell p@law.utah.edu,robiejenna g@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 8 2/21/2015 16:58 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorney AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 9 2/21/2015 17:05 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com StanPottinger@aol.com,cassellp@l aw.utah.edu,robiejennag@y7mail.c om Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 10 2/21/2015 17:10 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorney AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 11 2/21/2015 17:16 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 12 2/23/2015 14:21 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com,cassellp@law.utah. edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 13 2/23/2015 14:29 StanPottinger@aol.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com,cassellp@ law.utah.edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 14 2/23/2015 16:01 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com,cassellp@law.utah. edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 15 2/24/2015 17:51 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking information to assist in legal advice, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 16 Attached case research AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 14 rtf 17 2/26/2015 12:59 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and legal assistant re legal document, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 18 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 jfif 19 2/28/2015 17:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards and Henderson re discussion of draft statement AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 20 3/13/2015 17:29 Stan Pottinger robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 21 3/13/2015 17:49 Virginia Giuffre stanpottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 22 3/13/2015 17:56 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 23 3/13/2015 18:00 Brad Edwards StanPottinger@aol.com,robi ejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 24 3/13/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 25 3/13/2015 18:25 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 26 3/13/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,StanPotti nger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 27 3/13/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 28 3/13/2015 23:40 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 29 3/17/2015 15:20 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br ad@pathtojustice.com,stan pottinger@aol.com Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential legal action, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 30 3/17/2015 18:40 Stan Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br ad@pathtojustice.com,robie jennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 31 3/17/2015 19:42 Virginia Giuffre stanpottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 32 3/20/2015 15:43 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com,stan pottinger@aol.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com,brittany@path tojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 33 3/20/2015 15:57 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re potential deposition Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 34 3/24/2015 21:19 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 35 3/24/2015 21:21 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 36 3/24/2015 21:36 Andres Ortiz Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 37 3/24/2015 22:21 Virginia Giuffre aortiz@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 3 msg 38 3/26/2015 2:00 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,StanPotti nger@aol.com,brad@pathtojustice .com,brittany@pathtojustice.com,e perez@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 39 3/26/2015 2:21 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 40 3/26/2015 2:22 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 41 3/26/2015 3:00 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 42 4/1/2015 21:32 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Giuffre conveying information sought by attorney to assist in legal advice with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 43 4/2/2015 7:01 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com eperez@BSFLLP.com Providing draft legal document for client review, with attachment Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 44 Attached Draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 15 pdf 45 4/3/2015 15:32 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com,eperez@ BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards and legal assistant re legal document, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 46 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest 15 pdf Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 47 4/8/2015 20:34 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Seeking legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 48 4/9/2015 3:23 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re advice re legal filings, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 49 4/9/2015 7:16 Sigrid McCawley StanPottinger@aol.com,bra d@pathtojustice.com,robiej ennag@y7mail.com brittany@pathtojustice.com,sperki ns@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 50 4/9/2015 9:26 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, and McCawley re legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 51 4/9/2015 9:33 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 52 4/9/2015 12:46 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 53 Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 14 docx 54 Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 12 docx 55 Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 docx 56 4/10/2015 14:59 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com Providing legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 57 4/10/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Regarding legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 58 4/10/2015 17:31 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com,brittany@pathtojus tice.com,eperez@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Henderson, Edwards, Pottinger and legal assistant re legal documents, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 59 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 pdf Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 60 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 21 pdf 61 4/10/2015 17:40 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 62 4/10/2015 19:10 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 63 4/10/2015 19:28 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 64 4/10/2015 19:33 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 65 4/10/2015 20:03 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 66 4/10/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 67 4/10/2015 20:04 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 68 4/10/2015 23:46 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley legal assistant re seeking and providing information sought by attorney to assist in providing legal advice, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 69 4/13/2015 13:52 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re legal advice regarding potential public statements AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 70 4/13/2015 13:56 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re legal advice regarding media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 71 4/14/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,bri ttany@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com,stan pottinger@aol.com Providing legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 72 4/16/2015 11:14 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 73 4/16/2015 11:47 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 74 4/24/2015 19:22 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re records retention, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 75 Attached letter providing legal advice re document retention Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 pdf 76 4/24/2015 19:59 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding potential deposition Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 77 4/27/2015 21:20 Brad Edwards robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Seeking information to assist in providing legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 78 4/30/2015 6:42 Brittany Henderson eperez@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m ail.com Legal documents provided to assist in providing legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 79 4/30/2015 7:02 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson and paralegal re seeking and providing information to assist in providing legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 80 4/30/2015 7:05 Virginia Giuffre brittany@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 81 5/4/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre brittany@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 82 5/11/2015 18:20 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger, Henderson and Paralegal re seeking and providing information to assist in legal advice, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 83 5/11/2015 18:34 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 84 5/11/2015 18:40 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re case research, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 85 5/11/2015 18:45 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re potential legal action, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 86 5/11/2015 18:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 87 5/11/2015 18:56 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 88 5/17/2015 22:37 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing litigation documents to client, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 3 msg 89 Attached draft legal agreement AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 10 pdf 90 5/17/2015 22:40 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re legal agreement, with attachment Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 91 5/18/2015 18:40 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of confidential agreement, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 92 Attached confidential agreement page Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 jfif 93 Attached confidential agreement page Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 jfif 94 6/5/2015 19:16 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Conveying attorney mental impression regarding hearing Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 95 6/6/2015 17:20 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re attorney mental impression regarding hearing Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 96 6/25/2015 2:26 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing advice re status and strategy of ongoing legal matters Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 6 msg 97 7/17/2015 14:19 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com eperez@BSFLLP.com Discussion with S. McCawley regarding file related to representation by B. Josefsberg Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 4 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 98 7/27/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 99 7/29/2015 19:45 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com Conveying legal advice on media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 100 8/5/2015 19:51 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and paralegals re information sought to assist in providing legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 101 8/6/2015 2:14 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 102 8/6/2015 2:45 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern, Edwards and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 103 8/6/2015 2:55 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 104 8/6/2015 3:48 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking information to assist in legal advice, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 105 8/6/2015 3:51 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 106 9/1/2015 18:54 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com,brittany@ pathtojustice.com Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re potential legal action, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 107 9/7/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com,sm ccawley@bsfllp.com,stanpot tinger@aol.com Providing information sought by attorneys to provide legal advice, with attachment Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 108 Attached Information sought by attorneys to provide legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 docx 109 9/7/2015 18:58 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com,stan pottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re collection of information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 110 9/15/2015 21:58 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 111 9/15/2015 22:04 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 112 9/15/2015 22:07 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 113 9/20/2015 12:15 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com Conveying information about potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 114 9/20/2015 14:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 115 9/20/2015 19:16 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 116 9/20/2015 19:29 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 117 9/20/2015 19:30 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 118 9/21/2015 14:48 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re initiation of lawsuit, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 119 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 12 pdf 120 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 pdf 121 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 pdf 122 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 3 pdf Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 123 9/21/2015 14:51 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 125 Emails, letters, and other communications from 2011 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson (and other , Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States ("CVRA case"), Case no. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the CVRA case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the CVRA case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the CVRA case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the CVRA case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 126 Emails, letters, and other communications from 9/21/15 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Giuffre v. Maxwell (“Maxwell case”), 15-cv-07433-RWS, pending in the Southern District of New York, since the date of filing, September 21, 2015. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Maxwell case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the Maxwell case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the Maxwell case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the Maxwell case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 127 Emails, letters, and other communications from January 2015 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz case”), Case no. 15- 000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Dershowitz case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the Dershowitz case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the Dershowitz case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the Dershowitz case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 128 Emails, letters, and other communications from 2009 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi, other Podhurst attorneys, Legal Assistants, and Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Virginia Giuffre, Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi, other Podhurst attorneys, Legal Assistants, and Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein case”), Case No. 09-80656-CIV-Marra/Johnson (Southern District of Florida). Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Epstein case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the Epstein case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases 129 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley seeking information to assist with attorney advice. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 130 Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 26 pdf 131 4/30/2015 Brittany Henderson eperez@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m ail.com Communication re VRS registrations AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 132 4/29/2015 Andres Ortiz bh699@nova.edu Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,garvin@lclark.edu, robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS communications. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 133 4/29/2015 brittany henderson aortiz@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,garvin@lclark.edu, robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re legal advice re VRS communications. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 134 4/17/2015 Paul Cassell brad@pathtojustice.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brittany @pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL P.com,robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 5 msg 135 4/17/2015 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,cas sellp@law.utah.edu brittany@pathtojustice.com,eperez @BSFLLP.com,robiejennag@y7mail .com Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 4 msg 136 4/17/2015 Brad Edwards cassellp@law.utah.edu Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brittany @pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL P.com,robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 4 msg 137 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg 138 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg 139 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 140 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley StanPottinger@aol.com,robi ejennag@y7mail.com Lcarlsen@BSFLLP.com,brad@patht ojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 141 2/11/2016 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Lcarlsen@BSFLLP.com,Smccawley @BSFLLP.com,brad@pathtojustice. com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 142 2/9/2016 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 2 msg 143 Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 26 pdf 144 Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 23 docx 145 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re ongoing litigation. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 146 4/29/2015 Virginia Giuffre aortiz@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,bh699@n ova.edu,brad@pathtojustice.com,g arvin@lclark.edu Email chain with Henderson, McCawey, Edwards, Garvin and BSF staff re VRS communications. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 147 4/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre rebecca.boylan@yahoo.com Email chain with Boylan, Giuffre, McCawley, and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 148 2/26/2015 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email confirming legal advice re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 149 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media communications Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 150 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 151 1/13/2015 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Pottinger and Giuffre re anticipated litigation. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 152 Emails, letters, and other communications from January 2015 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence re potential legal action against entities and individuals. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to potential law suits, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the law suits, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to potential lawsuits, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to potential lawsuits, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 27 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 153 Email and letter communications The law enforcement entity, Virginia Giuffre, David Boies, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards The law enforcement entity, Virginia Giuffre, David Boies, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of Defendant and others. Public Interest Withheld approx. 57 documents Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated May 27, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-15 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 27 EXHIBIT 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 1 United States District Court For The Southern District of New York Giuffre v. Maxwell 15-cv-07433-RWS Ghislaine Maxwell’s Privilege Log Amended as of May 16, 2016 ***Per Local Rule 26.2, the following privileges are asserted pursuant to British law, Colorado law and NY law. Log ID DATE DOC. TYPE BATES # FROM TO CC RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES SUBJECT MATTER PRIVILEGE 1. 2011.03.15 E-Mails 1000- 1013 Ghislaine Maxwell Brett Jaffe, Esq. Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 2. 2011.03.15 E-Mails 1014- 1019 Brett Jaffe, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 3. 2015.01.02 E-Mails 1020- 1026 Ross Gow Ghislaine Maxwell Attorney Agent / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 4. 2015.01.02 E-Mail 1024- 1026 Ghislaine Maxwell Ross Gow Attorney Agent / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 5. 2015.01.02 E-Mail 1027- 1028 Ross Gow Ghislaine Maxwell Brian Basham Attorney Agent / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 6. 2015.01.06 E-Mail 1029 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest 7. 2015.01.06 E-Mail 1030- 1043 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Esq. Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Common Interest 8. 2015.01.10 E-Mail 1044 Ghislaine Maxwell Philip Barden, Esq., Ross Gow Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 9. 2015.01.10 E-Mail 1045- 1051 Ghislaine Maxwell Philip Barden, Esq. Client / Attorney Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 10. 2015.01.09 2015.01.10 E-Mails 1052- 1055 Ross Gow Philip Barden, Esq. G. Maxwell Agent / Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 11. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1055- 1058 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest 12. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1055- 1058 Philip Barden, Esq. Ross Gow G. Maxwell Attorney / Agent / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 13. 2015.01.11 E-Mail 1056- 1058 Philip Barden, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Ross Gow Attorney / Agent / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 2 14. 2015.01.11 – 2015.01.17 E-Mails 1059- 1083 Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest Privilege 15. 2015.01.13 E-Mail 1067- 1073 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest Privilege 16. 2015.01.13 E-Mail 1069- 1073, 1076- 1079 Philip Barden, Esq. Martin Weinberg, Esq. Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest Privilege 17. 2015.01.13 E-Mails 1068- 1069, 1074- 1076 Philip Barden, Esq. Ghislaine Maxwell Mark Cohen Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 18. 2015.01.21 E-Mail 1088- 1090 Ross Gow Philip Barden, Esq., Ghislaine Maxwell Agent / Attorney / Client Communication re: legal advice Attorney-Client 19. 2015.01.21 - 2015.01.27 E-Mails 1084- 1098 Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest Privilege 20. 2015.01.21- 2015.01.27 E-Mails 1099 Ghislaine Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Common Interest Communication re: legal advice Common Interest Privilege 21. 2015.04.22 E-mail 7 pages Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Common Interest Forwarding message from Martin Weinberg, labeled “Attorney￾Client Privilege” with attachment Common Interest Privilege 22. Various E-mails Agent of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman; Laura Menninger Agent of Haddon, Morgan & Foreman; Laura Menninger Agent of attorney and Attorney Attorney work product Attorney Work Product 23. Various E-mails Mary Borja; Laura Menninger Mary Borja; Laura Menninger Attorney Work Product Attorney work product Attorney Work Product 24. 2015.10.21 – 2015.10.22 E-mail chain with attachmen t Darren Indyke; Laura Menninger Darren Indyke; Laura Menninger Attorneys for parties to Common Interest Agreement Common Interest Agreement Attorney Work Product; Common Interest Privilege Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS ------------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents (the “Requests”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. This response is made to the best of Ms. Maxwell’s present knowledge, information and belief. Ms. Maxwell, through her attorneys of record, have not completed the investigation of the facts relating to this case, have not completed discovery in this action, and have not completed preparation for trial. Ms. Maxwell’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests are based on information currently known to her and are given without waiving Ms. Maxwell’s right to use evidence of any subsequently discovered or identified facts, documents or communications. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to supplement this Response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). 2. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they attempt to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from those under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules of this Court or any Orders of the Court. 3. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, any common interest privilege, joint defense agreement or any other applicable privilege. 4. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or information outside of Ms. Maxwell’s possession, custody or control. ......................................... Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 25 2 5. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information which is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they are overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or propounded for the improper purpose of annoying, embarrassing, or harassing Ms. Maxwell. 7. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague and ambiguous, or imprecise. 8. Ms. Maxwell objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information that is confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests. 9. Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference every general objection set forth above into each specific response set forth below. A specific response may repeat a general objection for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any specific response does not waive any general objection to that request. 10. The Requests seek information that is confidential and implicates Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests. To the extent such information is relevant and discoverable in this action, Ms. Maxwell will produce such materials subject to an appropriate protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) limiting their dissemination to the attorneys and their employees. OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 11. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 1 regarding “Agent” to the extent that it purports to extend the meaning beyond those permissible by law. 12. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 3 regarding “Defendant.” The Definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope of the Requests to documents in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. 13. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 5 regarding “Employee.” Ms. Maxwell is an individual, sued in an individual capacity, and therefore there is no “past or present officer, director, agent or servant” of hers. Additionally, “attorneys” and “paralegals” are not “employees” of Ms. Maxwell given that she herself is not an attorney and therefore cannot “employ” attorneys. 14. Ms. Maxwell objects to Definition No. 10 regarding “You” or “Your.” The Definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it attempts to extend the scope of the Requests to documents in the possession, custody or control of individuals other than Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 25 3 OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS 15. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 1, in particular the definition of the “Relevant Period” to include July 1999 to the present, on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Complaint at paragraph 9 purports to describe events pertaining to Plaintiff and Defendant occurring in the years 1999 – 2002. The Complaint also references statements attributed to Ms. Maxwell occurring in January 2015. Defining the “Relevant Period” as “July 1999 to the present” is vastly overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as to certain of the Requests, is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell and it implicates her privacy rights. Thus, Ms. Maxwell interprets the Relevant Period to be limited to 1999-2002 and December 30, 2014 - January 31, 2015, except to the extent that any the answers “relate to any activity of defendant with respect to the practice which has been alleged and the duties alleged to be performed by Defendant, ‘activities’ being defined as sexual abuse or trafficking of any female,” in which case her answers reflect the period 2000-today. Ms. Maxwell specifically objects to production of any documents outside that period, except as specifically noted. 16. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 3 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific disposition of documents, particularly electronic documents, dating back over 16 years. However, Ms. Maxwell, prior to this litigation has long had a practice of deleting emails after they have been read. 17. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 5, 8, 9, 12, 17 to the extent they seek to impose obligations to supply explanations for the presence or absence of such documents, to specifically identify persons or documents, to provide information concerning who prepared documents, the location of any copies of such documents, the identities and contact information for persons who have custody or control of such documents, the reasons for inability to produce portions of documents, and the “natural person in whose possession they were found,” beyond the requirements of Rule 34. This Instruction improperly seeks to propound Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33. 18. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instructions No. 13 on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and is intended for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell cannot possibly recall the specific circumstances upon which a document dating back 16 years has ceased to exist. 19. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction No. 15 to the extent that it calls for documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 20. Ms. Maxwell objects to Instruction Nos. 18 & 19 to the extent they require information on any privilege log above and beyond the requirements of Local Civil Rule 26.2. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 25 4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1 Produce all documents that Your attorneys reviewed and/or relied upon in the March 21, 2016, meet and confer discussion when Mr. Pagliuca stated that (1) Plaintiff made false allegations concerning her sexual assault; (2) she made them in roughly the same time frame that Plaintiff was abused by Jeffrey Epstein; (3) that the allegations were made against a number of individuals in the area; and (4) that the allegations were found to be unfounded by local police. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell has no knowledge of any statements made by Mr. Pagliuca during the March 21, 2016 meet and confer and hence has no documents responsive to this Request. Further, this Request inaccurately characterizes the statements of Ms. Maxwell’s counsel during the March 16, 2016 meet and confer. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2 Produce all documents concerning how any such police report, or how any such recounting, retelling, summary, or description of any such police report (as referenced in Interrogatory No. 1), came into Your possession. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents concerning how, when, and by whom such reports (or descriptions of reports) were obtained from a minor child’s sealed juvenile records and files. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request in that there is no “Interrogatory No. 1” to which the Request corresponds. She further objects to the Request in that it improperly seeks to propound an Interrogatory in the form of a Request for Production of Documents and is Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 25 5 a contention Interrogatory barred according to Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Local Rules. The Request embeds a number of assumptions that are not true and for which Plaintiff supplies no basis for assertion of their veracity. Ms. Maxwell likewise objects to this Request because it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Finally, Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell is withholding documents responsive to this request on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3 Produce all documents concerning how information or knowledge of the local police’s findings or opinions concerning Ms. Giuffre’s allegations of sexual assault as a minor child came into Your possession, including but not limited to documents concerning any statements made by law enforcement or any state attorney, written or oral, concerning such allegations. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 25 6 Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assaults in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell is withholding documents responsive to this request on the basis of the attorney-client and work product privileges. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4 Produce all documents concerning any investigations, internal or otherwise, by any law enforcement or governmental agency, regarding the illegal disclosure, illegal purchase, and/or theft of sealed juvenile police records concerning Plaintiff. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it characterizes the gathering of public information as “illegal.” Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5 Produce all documents concerning any rape, sexual assault, sexual intercourse, or other sexual encounter involving Plaintiff. This Request includes, but is not limited to, (1) any documents concerning any sexual assault of Plaintiff while a minor; (2) any police reports, or documents concerning any police reports, that were created concerning such claims of sexual assault; and (3) documents concerning any communications received by You (or Your agents or attorneys) by other individuals that reference any sexual assault of Plaintiff while a minor. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s false allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 25 7 Defendant objects to the characterization of Plaintiff’s documented false claims of sexual contact as “rape” or “sexual assault.” Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations of sexual assault in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6 Produce any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Defendant is withholding production of any such agreement on the basis of such privileges. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7 Produce any documents concerning any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Jeffrey Epstein from 1999 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Defendant is withholding documents on the basis of such privileges. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8 Produce any documents concerning any of Your, or Your attorneys or agent’s, communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present relating to the issue of sexual abuse of females, or any documents concerning any of Your, Your attorneys or agent’s, communications with Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present relating to the recruitment of any female under the age of 18 for any purpose, including socializing or performing any type of work or services. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell has already produced documents related to her communications with Jeffrey Epstein in response to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents, all of which document her denial that she did “recruit[] any female under the age of 18 for any purpose.” Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 25 8 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9 Produce any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Alan Dershowitz from 1999 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10 Produce any documents concerning any Joint Defense Agreement entered into between You and Alan Dershowitz from 1999 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11 Produce any documents concerning any of Your attorneys’ or agents’ communications with Alan Dershowitz’s attorneys or agents from 1999 to the present RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Defendant is withholding communications between Mr. Dershowitz’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel which contain work product and concern joint defense or common interest matters. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12 Produce all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre (a/k/a Virginia Roberts), whether or not they reference her by name. This request includes, but is not limited to, all communications, diaries, journals, calendars, blog posts (whether published or not), notes (handwritten or not), memoranda, mobile phone agreements, wire transfer receipts, or any other document that concerns Plaintiff in any way, whether or not they reference her by name. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome and interposed for improper purposes. Response to this Request would literally entail defense counsel reviewing for privilege every single document in their possession related to this case. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this request as exceeding the scope of this Court’s March 17, 2016 Order. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 25 9 or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to the foregoing objections, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel are not going to review every document in their possession for any additional documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13 Produce all contracts, including but not limited to indemnification agreements and employment agreements, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein, from 1999 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative and is overly broad. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any such documents. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14 Produce all documents concerning any contracts, including but not limited to indemnification agreements and employment agreements, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any entity associated with Jeffrey Epstein, from 1999 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative and is overly broad. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant has been unable to locate any such documents. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15 Produce all documents concerning the identity or identities of the individual(s) or entities paying Your legal fees concerning the above-captioned action, and all documents concerning the identity or identities of the individual(s) or entities paying Ross Gow, or any entities associated with Ross Gow, for any work he performed on Your behalf. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks multiple categories of documents within a single request for production. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell is producing her engagement letter with her counsel in this action. Defendant has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 25 10 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16 Produce all documents concerning any action or lawsuit brought against You from 1999 to the present, including, but not limited to, actions or lawsuits brought in foreign jurisdictions. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is over-broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17 Produce all documents concerning any statement made by You or on Your behalf to the press or any other group or individual, including draft statements, concerning Ms. Giuffre, by You, Ross Gow, or any other individual, from 2005 to the present, including the dates of any publications, and if published online, the Uniform Resource Identifier (URL) address. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell is not producing documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18 Produce all documents concerning which individuals or entities You or Your agents distributed or sent any statements concerning Ms. Giuffre referenced in Request No. 18 made by You or on Your behalf. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is cumulative and duplicative. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell is not producing documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 25 11 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19 Produce all documents concerning any alleged illegal activity involving Plaintiff from the Relevant Period. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documents concerning the Roadhouse Grill in Florida. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request as vague and confusing. Ms. Maxwell is unaware of all illegal activities in which Plaintiff may have been engaged in during the stated time period, and documents concerning those activities are uniquely within Plaintiff’s possession, custody and control. Ms. Maxwell further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents or information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Maxwell also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information relating to Virginia Roberts Giuffre that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing, Defendant refers to the public documents and news reports regarding Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse and investigation of the same, which have been previously produced, are available in the public domain, or referenced in court papers. Defendant also refers Plaintiff to documents within the possession, custody and control of Plaintiff and her counsel, including without limitation Mr. Bradley Edwards, which were requested in Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests, but were not produced despite certification of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel that such Responses were truthful and complete. Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s contacts with law enforcement in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20 Produce all documents concerning any apartment or other dwelling occupied by Plaintiff from 1999 to the present, including but not limited to, all documents concerning the acquisition of, and payment for, such dwellings. This Request includes, but is not limited to, any dwelling paid for -in whole or in part by Defendant or Jeffrey Epstein. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request to the extent it calls for information that exists within the public domain, the internet or in public court records and which are equally available to both parties and can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Ms. Maxwell is not producing documents that are available in the public domain. Ms. Maxwell is not re-producing documents already produced by her and produced by Plaintiff in this action, for example, in response to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff which requested inter alia documents related to Plaintiff’s residences since 1999. Without waiver of any such objections, Ms. Maxwell has made available documents related to some of Ms. Giuffre’s dwellings in her Second Supplemental Fed. R. Civ. P. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 25 12 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to locate any additional documents responsive to this Request. DOCUMENT REQUESTS “CONCERNING PUNITIVE DAMAGES” DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21 Produce all copies of the complaints in any lawsuits that You have filed in any court in which You seek damages or any other financial recovery from 2014 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22 Produce all Financial Statements prepared for or submitted to any Lender or Investor for the past three years by You personally or on Your behalf or on behalf of any entity in which You hold or held a controlling interest from January 2015 to the Present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 25 13 Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23 Produce all W-2s, K-1s, and any other documents reflecting any income (including salary, bonuses, dividends, profit distributions, royalties, advances, annuities, and any other form of income), including all gross and net revenue received by You directly or indirectly from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24 Produce all tax returns filed with any taxing entity (either foreign or domestic) from January 2015 to the present by You or on Your behalf, or on behalf of any entity in which You hold or held a controlling interest at the time of filing. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 25 14 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25 Produce all bank statements or other financial statements which were prepared by You, on Your behalf or by or on behalf of any entity in which You held an ownership interest of 10% or more at any time from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26 Produce all deeds and titles to all real property owned by You or held on Your behalf either directly or indirectly at any time from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27 Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all savings accounts, checking accounts, and savings and loan association share accounts owned by Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 25 15 You or on which You hold a right or have held a right to withdraw funds at any time from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28 Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all savings accounts, checking accounts and savings loan association share accounts, owned by You in whole or in party jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or owned by an entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest at any time from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29 Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank accounts in which You have a right to withdraw funds, reflecting the highest balance in said Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 25 16 accounts from January 2015 to the present. . RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30 Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank accounts owned by You solely, or jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or any entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest from January 2015 to the present, reflecting het highest balance in said accounts for each month from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31 Produce all checkbooks for all accounts on which You were authorized to withdraw funds from January 2015 to the present. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 25 17 RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32 Produce the 2015 and 2016 balance sheets and other financial statements with respect to any and all business enterprises of whatever nature (including not-for-profit enterprises), either foreign or domestic, in which You possess any ownership interest of 10% or more, whether a partner, joint venture, stockholder, or otherwise. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33 Produce all corporate securities (stocks or bonds), foreign or domestic, directly or indirectly held by You, or held on Your behalf or for Your benefit by another individual or entity, including trusts from January 2015 to the Present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 25 18 action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34 Produce all accounts receivable ledgers or other records which set forth the names and addresses of all persons or business enterprises that are indebted to You and the amounts and terms of such indebtedness from August 2016 to the Present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35 Produce all copies of the partnership or corporation Income Tax Returns for any partnership or corporation, either foreign or domestic, in which You do possess or have possessed any ownership interest of 4% or more whether as partner, joint venture, stockholder or otherwise, from 2014 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 25 19 annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36 Produce all title certificates, registration certificates, bills of sale, and other evidences of ownership possessed by You or held for Your beneficial interest with respect to any of the following described property owned by You or held directly or indirectly for Your beneficial interest from January 2015 to the present: a. Motor vehicles of any type, including trucks, other automobiles, and two or three-wheeled vehicles (motorcycles, ATV, etc.). b. Aircraft of any type, including jets, propeller planes, and helicopters c. Boats, launches, cruisers, sailboats, or other vessels of any type d. Real estate and real property RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37 From January 2012 to the present, produce all documents concerning any source of funding for the TarraMar Project or any other not-for-profit entities with which You are Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 25 20 associated, including but not limited to, funding received from the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William J. Clinton Foundation, a/k/a/ the Bill, Hilary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), and the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38 Produce all memoranda and/or bills evidencing the amount and terms of all of Your current debts and obligations that exist presently. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 39 Produce all records indicating any and all income (whether taxable or not) received by You from all sources from January 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 25 21 and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40 Produce all copies of any and all brokerage account statements or securities owned by You individually, jointly with any person or entity or as trustee, guardian or custodian, from January 2015 to the present, including in such records date of purchase and amounts paid for such securities, and certificates of any such securities. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41 Produce all records pertaining to the acquisition, transfer and sale of all securities by You or on Your behalf from January 2015 to the present, such records to include any and all information relative to gains or losses realized from transactions involving such securities. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 25 22 Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42 Produce all policies of insurance having any cash value that exist or existed from January 2015 to the present, which policies You or any entity controlled by You is the owner or beneficiary. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. UN-NUMBERED REQUEST Produce all copies of any and all trust agreements that exist or existed from January 2015 to the present in which You are the settlor or beneficiary together with such documents necessary and sufficient to identify the nature and current value of the trust. RESPONSE: Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Maxwell objects to this Request on the grounds that it is propounded for the improper purpose of annoying or harassing Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell’s personal financial information is not at issue in this matter and information relating thereto is irrelevant. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 25 23 Ms. Maxwell intends to move for a Protective Order regarding her personal financial information and is refusing to respond and is withholding documents under the category of “Document Requests Concerning Punitive Damages” until the motion is resolved. Based on the May 16, 2016 conferral, counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to hold this Request in abeyance pending either a finding of liability or resolution of dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel will not file a Motion to Compel a Response to this Request, nor will Defendant move for a Protective Order with regard to this Request, without further conferral. Dated: May 16, 2016 Respectfully submitted, s/Laura A.Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 25 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 16, 2016, I served the attached document DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS via email to the following counsel of record: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-17 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 25 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT MATERIALS BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 40 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 2 The CVRA Case ........................................................................................................................................... 2 The Dershowitz case........................................................................................................................ 4 The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument................................ 5 Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case........................................................................... 7 The Settlement of the Defamation Case .......................................................................................... 7 LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER....................................................................................................... 8 A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver................................................. 8 B. Florida Law................................................................................................................................. 9 C. Federal Law.............................................................................................................................. 11 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................. 14 I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ............................................... 14 A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already Rejected the Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here................................................. 14 B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s Attorney-Client Privilege. ......................................................................................................................... 18 C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were Never “At Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation. ................................................................... 19 D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of Attorney￾Client Privilege................................................................................................................ 21 E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client Communications in her Action Here........................................................................................................... 23 II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION................................ 25 III.EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO PENETRATE THE PROTECTION. ........................................................................................ 27 A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived............................................................ 27 B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection.................... 29 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 40 ii IV.COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED BY A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY￾CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION......................................................... 31 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 31 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 40 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 423 (S.D.N.Y.1994)............................................................................................................ 13 Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................................. 12 Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 40 A.D.3d 486, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616 (2007) .............................................................................................. 22 Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, No. 04 CIV 10014 PKL, 2009 WL 3111766 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009)........................................................................................ 14 Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................................ 10, 13, 14 Brookings v. State, 495 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1986)....................................................................................................................... 23 Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008) ................................................... 18 Butler v. Harter, 152 So.3d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014)....................................................................................................... 30 Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. 2d 154, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179 (Sup. Ct. 2002)............................................................................ 28 Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006).......................................................................................... 11, 12, 20 Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)......................................................................................................... 31 Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc., 407 F.Supp. 420 (S.D.N.Y.1976)............................................................................................................ 13 Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ...................................................................................................... 21 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter, 725 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 30 Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1983)..................................................................................................................... 22 Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ........................................................................................................ 20 Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1989)............................................................................... 14 Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 2 Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014).................................................................................................................... 3 Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ........................................................................................................ 28 Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion, 194 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 1999).................................................................................................................... 18 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 40 iv Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp., 866 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)...................................................................................................... 31 Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 31 Misc. 3d 1209(A), 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) ................................................................................................. 14 First Union National Bank v. Turney, 824 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)........................................................................................................ 10 Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ...................................................................................................... 10 Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)........................................................................................................... 12, 20, 29 Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135, 2016 WL 175918 ................................................................................... 12, 32 Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, 412 F.Supp. 286 (N.D.Ill.1976).............................................................................................................. 28 Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Fla. 2014)................................................................................................. 10, 11, 21 GUS Consulting GMBH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc. 3d 539, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591 (Sup. Ct. 2008).............................................................................. 32 Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ............................................................................................................ 10 Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975)............................................................................................... 10, 13, 16 HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) .............................................................................................................. 26 In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)....................................................................................................... 14 In re Bank of New York Mellon, 42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977 N.Y.S.2d 560 (Sup. Ct. 2013)...................................................................... 14 In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 12, 13, 25 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987)................................................................................................................ 14, 23 Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008).............................................................................................. 2 Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 3 Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ........................................................................................................ 22 Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003)...................................................................................................... 11 Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1985)................................................................................................................. 19, 22 Lynch v. State, 2 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2008)............................................................................................................................. 23 McCullough v. Kubiak, 158 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015) ...................................................................................................... 22 McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613 (Fla. 2010)......................................................................................................................... 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 40 v Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 591, 691 P.2d 642 (Cal. 1984)............................................................................................... 26 Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979)................................................................................................................................17 Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 135 So. 3d 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................................. 26 N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)....................................................................................................... 31 Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030 (1990)................................................................................................ 23 Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 62 A.D.3d 581, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)..................................................................... 25 O'Brien v. Fed. Trust Bank, F.S.B., 727 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) .............................................................................................. 17 Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So. 2d 812 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................................ 28, 29 Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979)................................................................................................................................17 Pereira v. United Jersey Bank, Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997)..................................... 13 Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455 (N.D. Cal.1978)............................................................................................................... 28 Procacci v. Seitlin, 497 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) .............................................................................................. 28 Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)...................................................................................................... 30 Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir.1994)....................................................................................................................... 13 Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................................... 11 Rogers v. State, 742 So.2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ........................................................................................................ 12 Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).......................................................................................................... 10 Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957)................................................................................................................... 12, 20 Schetter v. Schetter, 239 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) .......................................................................................................... 18 Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650 (S.D.N.Y.1982)........................................................................................................... 19 Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1994)...................................................................................................................... 30 State v. T.A., 528 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988) ....................................................................................................... 30 Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970)....................................................................................................................... 28 Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998)..................................................................................................................................8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 40 vi Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2003)........................................................................................................................... 22 Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 A.D.3d 223, 767 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2003) ................................................................................................ 26 Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So.3d 612, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011) ........................................................................................... 28, 31 West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 9 So.3d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ........................................................................................................... 29 Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So.3d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ........................................................................................................ 30 Zois v. Cooper, 268 B.R. 890 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)................................................................................................................ 17 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9)..................................................................................................................................3 Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771............................................................................... 2 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 .............................................................................................................................. 26 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c) ....................................................................................................................... 9 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2).................................................................................................................... 11, 22 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3).......................................................................................................................... 11 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(4).......................................................................................................................... 26 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.507 .............................................................................................................................. 12 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a) ............................................................................................................................. 14 Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240......................................................... 3 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)................................................................................................................................ 9, 18 Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1)............................................................................................................................... 27 Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2)............................................................................................................................... 27 Fed. R. Evid. 502 ................................................................................................................................ 1, 8, 27 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 27 Treatises Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.) ................................................................ 18 Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014).......................................................................................................................... 2 Other Authorities N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney)................................................................................................................ 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 40 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed at Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys (DE 164). The motion should be denied in its entirety. INTRODUCTION Defendant argues Ms. Giuffre and two of her attorneys (Cassell and Edwards) have somehow placed “at issue” her confidential attorney-client communications and therefore have made a “sweeping waiver” of attorney-client privilege in this case. Defendant, however, fails to cite the controlling law on this issue: Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Enacted in 2008, Rule 502 was designed to block exactly the kind of argument Defendant is making. Rule 502 provides that litigants are entitled to the most protective law on attorney-client privilege, either state law where the disclosure was made or federal law. The alleged disclosures in this case were made in Florida, and under Florida law did not constitute any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Defendant does not reveal to the Court that the Florida judge who handled the case during which the alleged “waivers” occurred (the Dershowitz case) has already considered – and rejected in their entirety – the very arguments that Defendant is advancing here. In addition, none of the alleged disclosures were made by Ms. Giuffre, who as the holder of the privilege is the only individual with authority to waive it. Moreover, none of the alleged disclosures concerned the substance of confidential attorney-client communications. And finally, Ms. Giuffre will not be seeking to introduce or otherwise take advantage of any confidential attorney-client communications in this case. Accordingly, for these and other reasons, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion in its entirety. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 40 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND The CVRA Case The facts relevant to this issue begin in 2008, when attorney Bradley J. Edwards (soon joined by co-counsel Professor Paul Cassell) filed a pro bono action in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Filed on behalf of Jane Doe 1 (and later Jane Doe 2) the CVRA action alleged that federal government had failed to protect the rights of Jane Doe 1 and other similarly situated victims of sex offenses committed by Jeffrey Epstein. See Declaration of Sigrid McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”) at Exhibit 1, Complaint filed in Jane Doe 1 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Jane Does 1 and 2 achieved many victories in the case, including a ruling that the CVRA rights of victims could apply before charges were filed, Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011);1 that they had standing to challenge the non-prosecution agreement reached between the Government and Epstein, Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, 950 F.Supp.2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013); and that plea negotiations were not protected from disclosure by any federal rule of evidence, Does v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014). Congress has also followed the developments in the case closely, recently amending the CVRA to insure that in the future crime victims receive notice of any non-prosecution agreement entered into by the Government. See Pub. L. 114-22, Title I, § 113(a), (c)(1), May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 240, 241 (adding 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(9) to give crime victims “[t]he right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement). 1 See generally Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act before Criminal Charges are Filed, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59 (2014). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 40 3 On December 30, 2014, Cassell and Edwards filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action on behalf two additional victims: Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4. (Jane Doe 3, Virginia Giuffre, subsequently decided to reveal her name). The joinder motion argued that Jane Does 3 and 4 should be allowed to join the two existing plaintiffs in the action because they had suffered the same violations of their rights under the CVRA. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 2, Jane Does’ 3 and 4 Joinder Motion.2 To establish that they were “victims” of Epstein’s sex crimes with standing to join the suit, Jane Does 3 and 4 alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse from Epstein. For example, Jane Doe 3 alleged that she had been forced by Epstein to have sexual relations with various persons, including Alan Dershowitz – who had been one of Epstein’s defense attorneys negotiating the non-prosecution deal and arranging to keep it secret from the victims. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 2 at 4. Jane Doe 3 also alleged that Defendant (i.e., Ghislaine Maxwell) had participated in the sexual abuse of Jane Doe 3. Id. at 4-5. After Dershowitz also filed a motion to intervene to contest the allegations (DE 282), Jane Doe 3 filed a response to Dershowitz’s intervention motion. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 3, Response to Motion to Intervene.3 The response explained that the allegations against Dershowitz were relevant to at least eight separate issues in the CVRA case. Id. at 18-26. The response also explained some of the evidence supporting the allegations against Dershowitz, including: x sworn testimony from one of Epstein’s household employees (Juan Alessi) that Dershowitz came “pretty often” to Epstein’s Florida mansion and got massages while he was there; 2 The Joinder Motion attached as an exhibit is a “corrected” motion, filed on January 2, 2015. As discussed below, several paragraphs in this motion were later stricken by Judge Marra. 3 This document is currently restricted/under seal in the CVRA case, although an order sealing it is not found in the Court record so far as can be determined. In light of the sealing of the document, we have marked aspects of this pleading dealing with the document as confidential. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 40 4 x sworn testimony from another of Epstein’s household employees (Alfredo Rodriquez) that Dershowitz was present alone at the home of Epstein, without his family, in the presence of young girls; x invocations of Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent by three of Epstein’s identified co-conspirators (Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adrianna Mucinska) when asked questions about whether Dershowitz had been involved with massages by young girls; x refusals by Jeffrey Epstein to discuss Dershowitz’s involvement but instead to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. Id. at 26-38. Several months later, on April 7, 2015, the Court (Marra, J.) denied Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4’s motion for joinder. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 4, Order denying Jane Doe 3’s motion to join. With regard to the eight separate issues as to which the allegations against Dershowitz were relevant, the Court addressed only the first (establishing “victim” status) and found that the “factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not related to the respondent Government.” Id. at 5.4 Accordingly, the Court struck the factual details from the victims’ pleading as unnecessary at that time. The Court specifically recognized, however, that the details could be reasserted by the parties to the action – i.e., Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 – if they could “demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court’s consideration.” Id. at 6. Following the Court’s ruling, additional litigation has proceeded in the CVRA case. The Dershowitz case 4 In asserting that the non-parties were “not related to the respondent Government,” the Court did not address Jane Doe 3’s argument that Dershowitz, as one of Epstein’s defense counsel, had helped negotiate the non-prosecution agreement and helped to arrange to keep it secret from the victims. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 40 5 While the CVRA case was moving forward in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jane Does 1 and 2, separate litigation developed between the pro bono attorneys who had filed the lawsuit (Cassell and Edwards) and Dershowitz. After the filing of the joinder motion in the CVRA case, Dershowitz took the airwaves to attack not only Jane Doe 3, but also Cassell and Edwards. Typical of these attacks was one levelled on CNN, in which Dershowitz alleged: If they [Cassell and Edwards] had just done an hours’ worth of research and work, they would have seen she is lying through her teeth. . . . They’re prepared to lie, cheat, and steal. These are unethical lawyers. . . . They can’t be allowed to have a bar card to victimize more innocent people. Hala Gorani – CNN Live (Jan. 5, 2015).5 Cassell and Edwards then filed a state law defamation action against Dershowitz in Broward County, Florida. See McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 5, Complaint in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The complaint alleged that Dershowitz had engaged in a “massive public media assault on the reputation and character” of Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 4. Ms. Giuffre was not a party to this defamation lawsuit. The Florida Court Rejects a Waiver of Attorney Clients Privilege Argument As Cassell and Edwards’ Florida defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz sought to make an argument that they had somehow waived their client’s (Ms. Giuffre’s) attorney-client privilege. On September 8, 2015, Dershowitz filed a motion to compel Cassell and Edwards to produce documents and additional responses to interrogatories. McCawley Decl., Exhibit. 6, Motion to Compel. In his motion, Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards “have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive documents and information 5 Available at http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/05/wrn-uk-sex-abuse-allegations-alan-dershowitz￾intv.cnn. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 40 6 by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz . . . .” Id. at 3-5. In his motion and reply pleading (McCawley Decl., Exhibit 8, Reply in Support of Motion to Compel), Dershowitz argued that Cassell and Edwards’ actions throughout the case constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Cassell and Edwards responded, arguing that Ms. Giuffre was not a party of the defamation action and that she was the only person who could waive her privilege. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 7 at 4-6, Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also argued that there had been no waiver because confidential attorney-client communications with Ms. Giuffre were not “at issue” in the defamation case. Id. at 6-9. Cassell and Edwards also later filed a sur-reply, further elaborating on the argument that Ms. Giuffre had not waived any attorney-client privilege by publicly discussing her sexual abuse by Epstein and his associates. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 9, Sur-Reply in Support Opposition to Motion to Compel. Cassell and Edwards also explained that communications with Ms. Giuffre were protected not only beginning in March 2014, but even earlier than that date when Ms. Giuffre understood that she was obtaining legal services from Cassell and Edwards. Id. at 1. Following this extensive briefing on waiver issues,6 on December 8, 2015, the Florida Court (Lynch, J.) ruled, denying Dershowitz’s argument that attorney-client privilege had been waived. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 10, Order Denying Motion to Compel. Specifically, the Court denied the motion to compel, explaining “Pre March 2014 communications are protected by the work product privilege and the witness has not waived the communications that were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Also, there was no waiver by the [Cassell and Edwards] by filing suit.” Id. at 1. 6 And following the filing of Cassell and Edwards’ summary judgment motion, filed on November 26, 2015. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 40 7 Ms. Giuffre’s Deposition in the Defamation Case As the defamation action moved forward, Dershowitz subpoenaed Ms. Giuffre to a deposition. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of excerpts from transcript of deposition of Ms. Giuffre. During the deposition, held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Ms. Giuffre was represented by the undersigned legal counsel, who asserted objections to revealing attorney￾client information where the questions called for revealing confidential attorney client communications. See, e.g., id. at 22-23; 131-32; 173-74; 183; 208. During the deposition, Ms. Giuffre specifically stated that “I decide not to waive my [attorney-client] privilege at this time.” Id. at 174. Ms. Giuffre also denied that Cassell and Edwards had ever pressured her into identifying someone as being involved in her sexual abuse. Id. at 200-12 The Settlement of the Defamation Case Ultimately, Cassell, Edwards, and Dershowitz agreed to settle their defamation case. That settlement included both a public statement and confidential monetary payments. As part of the settlement, Cassell and Edwards withdrew their allegations against Dershowitz in the defamation case contained in the then-pending summary judgment motion. McCawley Decl., Exhibit 12, Notice of Withdrawal of Summary Judgment Motion. As explained in the notice of withdrawal of this motion, “the withdrawal of the referenced filings is not intended to be, and should not be construed as being, an acknowledgement by Edwards and Cassell that the allegation made by Ms. Giuffre were mistaken. Edwards and Cassell do acknowledge that the public filing in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case of their client’s allegation against Defendant Dershowitz became a major distraction from the merits of the well-founded Crime Victims’ Rights Act by causing delay and, as a consequence, turned out to be a tactical mistake.” Id. All these actions settling the Florida defamation case took place in Florida. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 40 8 LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WAIVER A. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Controls on the Issue of Waiver Defendant asks this Court to find that Ms. Giuffre has somehow waived her attorney￾client privilege regarding various communications in this case. This is no small step. The attorney-client privilege is one of the “oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications.” Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 403 (1998)). The privilege’s purpose is to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.” 524 U.S. at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted). In setting out the legal standards pertaining to waiver of attorney-client privilege, Defendant fails to cite the controlling – and protective – law on the issue. In a federal case, issues of alleged waiver of attorney-client privilege must be resolved under the new standards in Federal Rule of Evidence 502. In 2008, Congress enacted Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which is entitled “Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver.” New rule 502 places a number of protections in place to reduce litigation over claims that a party has somehow “waived” attorney client privilege. See generally Adv. Comm. Note, Rule 502. Notably, Defendant does not discuss, or even cite, Rule 502 in her motion. The issue currently before the Court is specifically controlled by Rule 502(c), which covers situations where a disclosure in a state proceeding is alleged, in a federal proceeding, to establish waiver. Rule 502(c) provides the greater of protections found in federal or state law: (c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding. When the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 40 9 As is readily apparent from the text of the rule, there are two separate ways in which a party can prove that no waiver of attorney-client privilege has occurred: (1) by demonstrating that no waiver exists under federal law; or (2) by demonstrating that no waiver exists under the state law where the disclosure occurred. Between these two possibilities, the drafters of the rule decided to apply the most protective law that governs waiver. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), Adv. Comm. Notes (“The [Advisory] Committee [on the Federal Rules of Evidence] determined that the proper solution for the federal court is to apply the law that is most protective of privilege and work product” (emphasis added)). B. Florida Law C. Florida’s protective law on the attorney-client privilege provides that neither an attorney nor a client may be compelled to divulge confidential communications between a lawyer and client which were made during the rendition of legal services. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(1)(c). Communication denotes more than just giving legal advice; it also includes giving information to the lawyer to enable him to render sound and informed advice. Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Under Florida law, while the burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege usually rests on the party claiming it, First Union National Bank v. Turney, 824 So.2d 172, 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), when communications appear on their face to be privileged, the burden is on the party seeking disclosure to prove facts which would make an exception to the privilege applicable. Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In this case, Defendant does not appear to dispute that an attorney-client privilege exists with regard to the communications between Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys. Rather, Defendant’s argument is that the privilege has somehow been Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 40 10 waived. See Motion to Compel at 1-2. Therefore, under Florida law, Defendant must shoulder the burden of overcoming the privilege. (Of course, because Defendant failed to even cite, much less discuss, Florida law, she has not carried that burden.) Defendant asserts that she can force disclosure of the privileged communications between Ms. Giuffre and her counsel under the “at issue” doctrine. To establish this alleged waiver, Defendant’s motion relies on a federal district court case – Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975), which was cited in Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Ellis, M.J.). See Motion to Compel at 8. As discussed below, as a matter of controlling federal authority, these cases have been repudiated by the Second Circuit. And to the same effect, Florida law also rejects the expansive Hearn approach to waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593-95 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (discussing Florida authorities). Florida law disfavors waiver of the attorney-client privilege and will not readily find an “at issue” waiver. See Guarantee Ins. Co. v. Heffernan Ins. Brokers, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 590, 593 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (citing Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006) (refusing to find waiver based on the at￾issue doctrine)). In contrast to Hearn, under Florida law, at-issue waiver only occurs “when a party ‘raises a claim that will necessarily require proof by way of a privileged communication.’” Coates, 940 So.2d at 508 (quoting Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003)) (emphasis in original). Indeed, in 2014, the Southern District of Florida rejected the Hearn “at issue” analysis and instead, adopted the analysis of the Third Circuit as outlined in Rhone–Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co., 32 F.3d 851 (3d Cir. 1994). Guarantee Ins, 300 F.R.D. at 595. The Third Circuit deemed the Hearn test to be of “dubious validity” because, although it “dress[es] up [its] analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 40 11 conclusion that the information sought is relevant and should in fairness be disclosed.” Id. at 864. The Third Circuit specifically rejected Hearne because relevance is not the standard for determining whether or not evidence should be protected from disclosure as privileged. Rhone, 32 F.3d at 863. Florida law tracks that of the Third Circuit. See 300 F.R.D. at 593-95 (citing Florida case law). Also, under Florida law, the client – not her attorneys – holds the attorney-client privilege. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(3); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2) (a client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client). Some Florida courts have even recognized serious due process issues could be created by a procedure through which a client lost their privilege without an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings. See, e.g., Rogers v. State, 742 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Under Florida law, so long as a client has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication, under § 90.507, the privilege is protected. McWatters v. State, 36 So.3d 613, 636 (Fla. 2010). Also under Florida law, only the client – not her attorney – can waive attorney-client privilege. See Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957), Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011). C. Federal Law Rather than discuss Florida privilege law, Defendant exclusively cites federal case law. See Mot. to Compel at ii-iii (table of authorities citing only federal cases). Yet as this Court has previously held in ruling on an earlier privilege motion made by the Defendant, state law generally provides the rule of decision in this diversity case. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, DE 135 at Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 40 12 6, 2016 WL 175918 at * 6 (applying New York privilege law) (citing Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Because this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity . . . state law provides the rule of decision concerning the claim of attorney-client privilege.”)). Accordingly, an argument can be made that New York state law applies in this case7 – but Defendant does not explain why she jumps to federal law. As explained above, in the particular context of a waiver argument, Federal Rule of Evidence 502 applies the more protective of state law or federal law in determining whether a waiver of privilege has occurred. In this case, the controlling federal law is at least as protective as Florida law. The controlling federal law here comes from the Second Circuit, including In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008) – a case not even cited, much less discussed, by the Defendant. In view of the importance of the attorney-client privilege, the Second Circuit in that case held that any finding of waiver should be made with “caution.” Id. at 228. Rather than cite this controlling Second Circuit precedent, Defendant relies on a 2002 case from this Court applying the Hearn “at issue” doctrine. See Mot. to Compel at 8 (citing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506. 509-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Ellis, Magistrate Judge) (quoting Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975)). Defendant goes on to argue that “courts have generally applied the Hearn [at issue] doctrine liberally, finding a broad waiver of attorney-client privilege where a party asserts a position ‘the truth of which can only be assessed by examination of the privilege communication.” Mot. to Compel at 8 (internal quotation omitted). Defendant fails to recognize that the Second Circuit has explicitly disavowed the Hearn doctrine. In In re Cnty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit explained that “[c]ourts in our Circuit and others have criticized Hearn and have applied its tests unevenly.” Id. 7 As a protective matter, Ms. Giuffre will also provide citations to New York state authorities in this response. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 40 13 at 227-28.8 The Second Circuit also noted that the Hearn test “has been subject to academic criticism. See, e.g., Richard L. Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 MICH. L. REV. 1605, 1628-29 (1986); Note, Developments in the Law-Privileged Communications, 98 HARV. L. REV. 1650, 1641-42 (1985) (identifying “the faults in the Hearn approach”). In light of these strong criticisms of Hearn, the Second Circuit decided that “[w]e agree with its critics that the Hearn test cuts too broadly and therefore conclude that the District Court erred in applying it here. . . . Nowhere in the Hearn test is found the essential element of reliance on privileged advice in the assertion of the claim or defense in order to effect a waiver.” 546 F.3d at 229 (emphasis added). The Second Circuit held that, for an “at issue” waiver to occur, “a party must rely on privileged advice from his counsel to make his claim or defense.” Id. (emphasis added). In light of the Second Circuit’s holding, recent cases from this Court have explained that “reliance on privileged advice in the assertion of the claim or defense is an ‘essential element’ of a claim of waiver.” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, No. 04 CIV 10014 PKL, 2009 WL 3111766, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2009).9 For the sake of completeness, it may be relevant to note that New York state privilege law applies the same 8 The Second Circuit cited numerous cases, including cases from this Court – e.g., Pereira v. United Jersey Bank, Nos. 94 Civ 1565 & 94 Civ 1844, 1997 WL 773716, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.11, 1997) (“Hearn is problematic insofar as there are very few instances in which the Hearn factors, taken at face value, do not apply and, therefore, a large majority of claims of privilege would be subject to waiver.”); Allen v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc., 848 F.Supp. 423, 429 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (noting that district courts within this Circuit have reached conflicting decisions in the application of Hearn, and rejecting reliance “upon a line of cases in which courts have unhesitatingly applied a variation of the Hearn balancing test”); Connell v. Bernstein-Macaulay, Inc., 407 F.Supp. 420, 422 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (“The actual holding in [Hearn] is not in point because the party there asserting the privilege had expressly relied upon the advice of counsel as a defense to the plaintiff's action.”); Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 864 (3d Cir.1994) (deeming Hearn to be of “dubious validity” because, although it “dress[es] up [its] analysis with a checklist of factors, [it] appear[s] to rest on a conclusion that the information sought is relevant and should in fairness be disclosed”). 9 The Aristocrat Leisure case accordingly rejected a party’s reliance on the same authority that Defendant relies upon here. See Aristocrat, 2009 WL 3111766 at *16 n.6 (discussing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A., 210 F.R.D. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), and then noting in the next sentence that the Hearn test relied upon by Bank Brussels’ “recently has been criticized by the Second Circuit on this very issue.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 40 14 specific and protective standard. See In re Bank of New York Mellon, 42 Misc. 3d 171, 177, 977 N.Y.S.2d 560, 565 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (“’at issue’ waiver occurs ‘when the party has asserted a claim or defense that he intends to prove by use of the privileged materials.’ An example of an affirmative act that does constitute ‘at issue’ waiver of privilege is a party’s ‘assert[ing] as an affirmative defense [its] reliance upon the advice of counsel.’”).10 DISCUSSION I. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHEN EDWARDS AND CASSELL FILED AND PURSUED THEIR OWN DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST ALAN DERSHOWITZ. Defendant’s lead argument is that Cassell and Edwards waived Ms. Giuffre’s attorney￾client privilege when they filed and pursued a defamation action against Alan Dershowitz. See Mot. to Compel at 10. This claim is meritless for numerous reasons, including the fact (not disclosed by Defendant) that this very argument has been fully litigated before the Florida court handling that defamation action, which specifically rejected any finding of waiver. A. The Florida Court Presiding over the Defamation Action Has Already Rejected the Same Waiver Claim that Defendant is Advancing Here. The claim that Cassell and Edwards somehow waived Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client by pursuing their own, personal defamation action against Dershowitz has already been the subject of extensive briefing – and, ultimately, a Florida court ruling. Defendant has scoured the docket 10 New York and federal authorities also hold that when attorneys are not acting on the client’s behalf, they cannot waive their client’s privilege. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4503(a); Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 290, 536 N.E.2d 1126, 1134 (N.Y. 1989) (“[T]he sine qua non of any evidentiary privilege is that it is personal to, and can only be waived by, the privilege holder.”). See also In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100-01 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Of course, the privilege belongs solely to the client and may only be waived by him. An attorney may not waive the privilege without his client's consent.”); In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 406, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (same); Ferreira v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 31 Misc. 3d 1209(A), 929 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011) (“CPLR 4503 makes clear that an attorney cannot waive the attorney-client privilege rather waiver is only effective when done by the beneficiary of the privilege or their personal representative.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 40 15 in the Dershowitz defamation case to collect every flyspeck of information that she believes support her argument that a “waiver” has taken place. See Mot. to Compel at 10-12 and numerous associated exhibits. But, remarkably, she has not revealed to this Court the most relevant information from the docket: that the Florida court considered the same waiver issues and rejecting the same arguments that the Defendant now advances. This Florida court ruling, applying Florida law, is controlling here. As discussed above in the factual section of this response, in the Florida case, Dershowitz filed a motion to compel advancing legal and factual arguments identical to those the Defendant is advancing here. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 3, Dershowitz motion to compel (arguing that Cassell and Edwards “have waived any privilege or protection that would otherwise attach to responsive documents and information by bringing this defamation action placing at issue the truthfulness of Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz . . . .”). Id. at 3. Citing Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975), Dershowitz claimed that information Ms. Giuffre had confidentially provided to Cassell and Edwards as her attorneys had become “at issue” in the defamation action. McCawley Decl., Ex. 6 at 4-5. Dershowitz argued broadly that a whole host of alleged attorney-client communications were “at issue” in the case, including: (1) Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz asserted in the action captioned Jane Doe #1, et al. v. United States of America, Case No. 08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the “Federal Action”); (2) [Cassell and Edwards’] investigation into Jane Doe No. 3’s allegations against Dershowitz; (3) [Cassell and Edwards’] assertion in the Complaint that Dershowitz was an alleged participant in the criminal conduct committed by Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”); and (4) Jane Doe No. 3’s whereabouts and activities during the time when she claims to have been “sex slave” for Epstein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 40 16 Ex. 6 at 3. As the briefing on the issue continued, in an October 26, 2015 response filing, Dershowitz argued that Ms. Giuffre’s public statements waived the privilege,11 along with actions by her attorneys Cassell and Edwards. Ex. 8 at 5-8.12 After all these arguments were fully briefed, the Florida court (Lynch, J.) rejected Dershowitz’s arguments that any waiver of the attorney-client privilege had taken place. McCawley Decl., Ex. 10 at 1 (“Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of documents and complete responses to interrogatories is hereby denied.”). In a December 8, 2015, order, Judge Lynch provided a short explanation of his reasoning and entered an order denying Dershowitz’s waiver motion. Id. In her pending motion to compel, Defendant recycles the same arguments that Dershowitz made, such as the claim that Cassell and Edwards waived privilege by filing suit (Mot. Compel at 10), that her March 2011 interview with Scarola and Edwards was a waiver (id. at 10), and other similar claims (id. at 11-13). But Dershowitz already litigated these issues a few months ago in the Dershowitz case – and his claims were rejected by the Florida court. Defendant is now collaterally estopped from relitigating these identical issues here, because Dershowitz had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues and Defendant was in a “common interest” agreement with Dershowitz at the time. The doctrine of collateral estoppel protects litigants – and the courts – from relitigating identical issues and promotes efficiency by barring unnecessary litigation. See Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979). As this Court has explained, for collateral estoppel to apply, there must have been a full 11 Dershowitz specifically listed the following public statements by Ms. Giuffre as illustrations of how she had waived her privilege: (1) Ms. Giuffre’s March 5, 2011, interview with the Daily Mail; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s April 7, 2011, recorded telephone interview with attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards; (3) the January 2015 release of Ms. Giuffre’s diary by Radar Online; (4) Ms. Giuffre’s statements to “numerous other third parties,” including former boyfriends and the FBI; and (5) Ms. Giuffre’s filing of this suit against Defendant. Ex. 6 at 6-8. 12 Dershowitz specifically argued that (among other illustrations) Cassell’s answers to interrogatories and testimony at his deposition in the case had waived privilege. Ex. 6 at 11-12. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 40 17 and fair opportunity to litigate the decision that now controls and the issue in the prior action must be identical to and decisive of the issue in the instant action. Zois v. Cooper, 268 B.R. 890, 893 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd sub nom. In re Zois, 73 F. App’x 509 (2d Cir. 2003). A non-party can be bound by a decision, so long as her interests were “effectively represented.” Zois, 268 B.R. at 893.13 As this Court can readily determine from reviewing the pleadings Dershowitz filed in the Florida case, see McCawley Decl. at Ex. 6 & 8, Dershowitz fully briefed identical issues to those presented here. And he was effectively representing Maxwell at the time. The elements of collateral estoppel apply. Moreover, entirely apart from collateral estoppel doctrine, Judge Lynch’s decision is highly persuasive. Judge Lynch was the presiding judge over the Dershowitz matter, so he was intimately familiar with (for example) what matters were “at issue” in that particular case. Moreover, Judge Lynch is, of course, a Florida judge skilled in applying Florida legal principles. His ruling on whether a waiver of attorney client privilege existed under Florida law should be given heavy weight here. See Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion, 194 F.3d 363, 370 (2d Cir. 1999). Finally, Defendant’s briefing entirely ignores even the existence of Judge Lynch’s ruling. In such circumstances where the Defendant has failed to offer any reason for questioning Judge Lynch’s holding, this Court should follow Judge Lynch’s lead and hold that no waiver of the attorney-client privilege exists under Florida law. And, because Florida law controlled when the disclosures took place, under Fed. R. Evid. 502(c), no waiver exists in this proceeding. 13 Zois relied on New York law. Florida law is to the same effect, as is federal doctrine. See O'Brien v. Fed. Trust Bank, F.S.B., 727 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (“Collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues where the identical issues previously have been litigated between the parties or their privies.”); Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 40 18 B. Actions by Cassell and Edwards Do Not Waive Ms. Giuffre’s Attorney-Client Privilege. Not only has Judge Lynch already ruled on the attorney-client privilege issue, but his ruling was entirely correct. Defendant’s argument rests on the proposition that Cassell and Edwards had authority to waive Ms. Giuffre’s privilege while they pursued their Florida defamation action. But in filing their own, personal defamation claims against Dershowitz in a lawsuit where Ms. Giuffre was not a party, Cassell and Edwards were not acting on Ms. Giuffre’s behalf. Defendant never attempts to even explain, much less prove, how that defamation action could have benefitted Ms. Giuffre. And Florida law is clear that when attorneys are not acting on the client’s behalf, they cannot waive their client’s privilege. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, 1 Fla. Prac., Evidence § 502.6 (2015 ed.); Schetter v. Schetter, 239 So.2d 51, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). To find that an attorney waived his client’s privilege, a clear record must exist concerning the attorney’s attorney to waive privilege. See Bus. Integration Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008). Here, to the contrary, the record is clear that Ms. Giuffre did not authorize any waiver of her attorney-client privilege. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 13, affidavit of Ms. Giuffre (Ms. Giuffre did not authorize any waiver). Accordingly, under Florida law, Cassell and Edwards’ actions did not waive Ms. Giuffre’s privilege.14 The main examples Defendant offers in support of her waiver argument come from a summary judgment motion that Cassell and Edwards filed. See Mot. to Compel at 16. Of 14 For the sake of completeness, it is worth noting that both federal law and New York state law likewise require that a client waive attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Schnell v. Schnall, 550 F. Supp. 650, 653 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (no waiver of attorney-client privilege where attorney testified at hearing without presence or authorization of client); N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) (“Unless the client waives the privilege, an attorney . . . shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication, in any action, disciplinary trial or hearing, or administrative action, proceeding or hearing conducted by or on behalf of any state, municipal or local governmental agency or by the legislature or any committee or body thereof.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 40 19 course, that motion was filed on their behalf – not Ms. Giuffre’s. To be sure, that motion contained (among other supporting information) a sworn affidavit from Ms. Giuffre.15 But the routine step of submitting an affidavit is not a waiver of attorney-client protections, as discussed at greater length in Part II.D., infra. And, in any event, Defendant does not include that affidavit among her supporting materials to her motion, much less explain how the recitation of factual information in that affidavit constitutes a waiver by Ms. Giuffre with respect to communications with her attorneys. See Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 1985) (no waiver when the client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication with the client’s attorney). Ms. Giuffre has not waived her privilege. C. Ms. Giuffre’s Confidential Communications With Her Attorneys Were Never “At Issue” in the Florida Dershowitz Litigation. Defendant’s argument that Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client privilege has been waived under the “at issue” doctrine also fails under Florida law because her confidential communications were never at issue in the Dershowitz litigation. Florida law on when confidential attorney-client communications are at issue comes from the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1957). There, the Florida Supreme Court announced the test for determining whether confidential communications were “at issue” as whether a claim or defense would “necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence.” Id. at 819 (emphasis added); see also Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). More recent decisions from Florida 15 The “evidentiary support” for the summary judgment motion rested on 16 additional exhibits, including such obviously non-privileged materials as a Palm Beach Police Department report; flight logs from Epstein’s jet; excerpts from deposition testimony of Epstein, Juan Alessi, Alfredo Rodriquez, and Alan Dershowitz; photographs; and Epstein’s telephone directory. See Menninger Dec., Ex. E at 28. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 40 20 have emphasized that Savino does not mean that a party waives attorney-client privilege merely by bringing or defending a lawsuit. Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Instead, waiver occurs only when a party “must necessarily use the privilege information to establish its claim or defense.” Id. at 510-11 (emphasis added). Most recently, in Genovese v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064, 1069 (Fla. 2011), as revised on denial of reh’g (Nov. 10, 2011), the Florida Supreme Court cited both Coates and Savino to hold that the “at issue” doctrine allows discovery of privileged material only when the holder of the privilege – the client – raises the advice of counsel as a claim or defense in the action and the communication is essential to the claim or defense. Id. Under these restrictive standards, Ms. Giuffre’s communications were never at issue in her attorneys’ personal, defamation case against Dershowitz. Consider, for example, a typical allegation Cassell and Edwards’ complaint: Immediately following the filing of what Defendant, Dershowitz, knew to be an entirely proper and well-founded pleading, Dershowitz initiated a massive public media assault on the reputation and character of Bradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell accusing them of intentionally lying in their filing, of having leveled knowingly false accusations against the Defendant, Dershowitz, without ever conducting any investigation of the credibility of the accusations, and of having acted unethically to the extent that their willful misconduct warranted and required disbarment. McCawley Decl., Ex. 5 at 4 (¶ 17). As is immediately apparent, this allegation does not require an examination of Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her attorneys. Instead, it requires an assessment of Dershowitz’s state of mind with regard to his knowledge of the information that Cassell and Edwards had to support the filing of the allegations. And, as supporting exhibits to the pleadings Cassell and Edwards filed made clear, the adequacy of their investigation could be readily established from many sources that did not have any connection to what Ms. Giuffre may or may not have told them in confidence. See, e.g., McCawley Decl., Ex. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 40 21 3 at 26-38 (recounting information supporting allegations against Dershowitz, such as sworn testimony from household employees and invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein and his co-conspirators). To be sure, Dershowitz tried to make an argument that Ms. Giuffre’s communications with her attorneys might have some arguable relevance to the case. But Judge Lynch rejected that very argument – and quite properly so. Relevance is insufficient to waive privilege under Florida law. Guarantee Ins, 300 F.R.D. at 594 (citing Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). A client does not waive the attorney-client privilege simply because her credibility could be impeached by communications with her former attorney. See Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, under Florida law, Ms. Giuffre’s confidential communications with her attorneys were never at issue in the Florida litigation.16 D. Defendant Has Not Met the Other Requirements for Showing Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to make the required showing for an “at issue” waiver of attorney-client privilege. But even more fundamentally, Defendant has failed to establish other elements necessary to find a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Defendant repeatedly refers to routine litigation actions, such as the filing of in-court affidavits, as a basis for finding some kind of waiver of privilege. See Mot. to Compel at 16. But it is obvious that such actions do not waive attorney-client protection. Litigation requires some limited communication to third parties — including the court and opposing counsel — of information learned in the course of the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, Florida law recognizes an 16 The same result would obtain under New York state law. See, e.g., Am. Re-Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 40 A.D.3d 486, 492, 837 N.Y.S.2d 616, 622 (2007) (the at-issue “doctrine applies where a party, through its affirmative acts, places privileged material at issue and has selectively disclosed the advice”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 40 22 absolute privilege to protect attorneys’ statements made in communications that are preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(2); see also McCullough v. Kubiak, 158 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2015). A waiver of the attorney-client privilege occurs only if the client voluntarily discloses in court the substance of a communication with her attorney. See, e.g., Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Fla. 1983) (criminal defendant sought to use in court favorably testimony from his investigator while blocking inquiry into other testimony). No waiver occurs when the client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication with the client’s attorney. See Koon v. State, 463 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 1985); see also Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1, 26 n.29 (Fla. 2003). Thus, the privilege attaches to the communication with counsel, not to the underlying facts. Brookings v. State, 495 So.2d 135, 139 (Fla. 1986); see also Lynch v. State, 2 So.3d 47, 66 (Fla. 2008).17 As a result, allegations that Giuffre disclosed to third parties the same facts that she may have related to Cassell and Edwards, without any evidence that she disclosed the substance of her confidential consultation with Edwards and Cassell, cannot overcome her privilege.18 To hold otherwise would eviscerate the attorney-client privilege. Such a ruling would mean that every time an attorney filed a declaration by his client that contained the factual basis for the client’s claim, the opposing party would have the right to examine all privileged communications. Defendant has not cited any authority either in Florida (or elsewhere) to 17 New York state privilege law is to the same effect. See, e.g., Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 372, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 1034 (1990) (because “the privilege applies only to confidential communications with counsel (see, CPLR 4503), it does not immunize the underlying factual information . . . from disclosure to an adversary”). 18 As an illustration, Defendant notes that in 2011 Ms. Giuffre gave an interview to the Daily Mail. Mot. to Compel at 15. But Defendant does not explain how that interview disclosed any attorney-client communications. And because any such disclosures would have been extrajudicial, they would be narrowly construed. In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 103 (2d Cir. 1987). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 40 23 support his extreme assertion that Ms. Giuffre waived her privilege simply by allowing an affidavit to be filed in a court proceeding. Defendant also claims Cassell, at his deposition in the Dershowitz case, waived attorney￾client privilege by discussing factual information related to his investigation of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations (for example, flight log information). Cassell’s deposition testimony did not constitute a waiver of Ms. Giuffre’s attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre’s own separate attorney (undersigned counsel, Ms. McCawley, from the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP) raised a standing objection to Cassell answering any question that would require divulging any attorney/client communications. McCawley Decl., Ex. 14, deposition excerpt of Paul Cassell, Volume I, dated Oct. 16, 2015, at 39:24 – 40:2 (“Virginia Roberts does not waive her attorney/client privilege with her lawyers, and they are not entitled to testify as to information that she intended to be confidential that she communicated to her lawyers.”).19 Defendant also argues that because Cassell said at some (unspecified) point in his deposition that he “knew” some (unidentified) information about Ms. Giuffre, he must have been revealing attorney-client communications. Mot. to Compel at 17 (“Of course, the information [Cassell and Edwards] “knew” about [Ms. Giuffre was a direct result of her attorney-client communications with them . . . .”). But Cassell knew a vast amount of information about Ms. Giuffre from the factual record in the case, such as the flight logs demonstrating flights that she took with Epstein and Defendant on Epstein’s jet. Defendant’s logic is simply incorrect. E. Ms. Giuffre Will Not Seek to Use Confidential Attorney-Client Communications in her Action Here. For all the reasons just explained, Ms. Giuffre has not waived her attorney-client privilege through events that occurred in the Dershowitz case. But one additional point bears 19 In her “excerpts” from Cassell’s deposition, Defendant has not included this portion. See Menninger Dec., Ex. L. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 40 24 emphasis: Defendant attempts to argue that the trial in this case will somehow be unfair if she does not receive access to confidential attorney-client communications that Ms. Giuffre had with her lawyers earlier. Mot. to Compel at 20-21. But regardless of what may or may not have been at issue in the Dershowitz case, confidential communications will not be at issue here. For example, Defendant writes that “[i]t would be prejudicial for [Ms. Giuffre] to be able to support her claim in this case that she is not a liar using her attorney’s testimony . . . .” Id. at 21. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has no intention of calling, for example, Cassell and Edwards to testify at trial in an attempt to support her claims. Thus, this will not be a case where it will be “misleading to the court or any jury to hear testimony from [Ms. Giuffre’s] counsel about all the factual basis, work product and thought process on which they relied in making the allegations in the Joinder Motion,” Mot. to Compel at 22, for the simple reason that that Ms. Giuffre’s counsel will not be witnesses in the case. Nor will Ms. Giuffre be presenting a “state of mind” defense that might require a more extensive inquiry into attorney-client communications. See In re Cty. of Erie, 546 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting absence of good faith or state of mind issues as a reason for not finding “at issue” waiver of privilege); Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 62 A.D.3d 581, 582, 880 N.Y.S.2d 617, 618-20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (finding no waiver where plaintiff disavowed any intention to use confidential attorney-client communications; relevance alone insufficient to put privileged materials “at issue” because, “if that were the case, a privilege would have little effect”). To be sure, at trial Ms. Giuffre will present factual testimony supporting her version of events – just as, no doubt, Defendant will try to present testimony supporting her version. But such testimony (from both sides) does not create any waiver of attorney-client privilege. Instead, such testimony is simply the presentation of competing facts, from which the jury can decide Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 40 25 who is telling the truth. None of this creates any need for Defendant to force Ms. Giuffre to reveal confidential communications. II. MS. GIUFFRE DID NOT WAIVE HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY DENYING FABRICATED EVICENCE DURING HER DEPOSITION. Defendant spends significant time arguing that Ms. Giuffre’s answers to several deposition questions about the absence of any communications from Cassell and Edwards that she provide false information constituted a waiver of attorney client privilege. Mot. to Compel at 11 (arguing that “never” answer to the question “Has Brad [Edwards] ever pressured you or encouraged you in any way or under any circumstances at any time to provide false information about Jeffrey Epstein” constituted a waiver of attorney-client privilege). While the arguments above are sufficient to dispose of this claim, it is worth emphasizing several additional points about this specific testimony. First, disclosing the absence of communication is not the same as exposing any communication. It is a fundamental requirement of a waiver argument that a communication be exposed, see Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502 (extending privilege to a “communication between lawyer and client”), not the absence of such a communication. See Montanez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 135 So. 3d 510, 512-13 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (rejecting argument that client waived her attorney-client privilege by stating that an interrogatory answer was not “her” answer because this did not disclose the substance of her communications with her attorney). Cf. Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 591, 602, 691 P.2d 642, 647 (Cal. 1984) (“Relevant case law makes it clear that mere disclosure of the fact that a communication between client and attorney had occurred does not amount to disclosure of the specific content of that communication, and as such does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the privilege.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 40 26 Second, the questions highlighted by Defendant asked Ms. Giuffre whether she had ever communicated with her attorneys Cassell and Edwards for purposes of committing a crime or fraud. See Mot. to Compel at 11 (recounting questions). If such a communication involving perjury had existed, it would not have been covered by the attorney-client privilege in the first instance because it would have involved an on-going crime or fraud. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 90.502(4) (“There is no lawyer-client privilege under this section when . . . [t]he services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew was a crime or fraud.”).20 Answering those questions by denying the existence of a crime or fraud accordingly did not constitute waiver of confidentiality over any otherwise￾protected communication. Indeed, any other conclusion would essentially abolish the attorney￾client privilege. A party could simply accuse the opposing side of fabricating evidence and, when that accusation was denied, argue that attorney-client privilege had been waived. This is not the law. Finally, it is important to note that throughout her deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s attorney strenuously objected to any effort by Dershowitz to obtain attorney-client information. See McCawley Decl., Exhibit 11, Composite Exhibit of Deposition Excerpts from the Deposition of Virginia Giuffre at 131-32; 173-74; 183; 200-12.21 Clearly, at her deposition, Ms. Giuffre did not voluntarily waive any attorney-client privilege she held. 20 Again, for sake of completeness, it is worth noting that federal and New York state law also contain a crime-fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Swerdlow, 259 F.R.D. 64, 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 A.D.3d 223, 224, 767 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2003) (attorney-client privilege “may not be invoked where it involves client communications that may have been in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or an accusation of some other wrongful conduct”). 21 Once again, these objections are not included in Defendant’s excerpts from the deposition. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 40 27 III. EDWARDS AND CASSELL HAVE NOT WAIVED WORK-PRODUCT PROTECTION AND MAXWELL HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED NEED TO PENETRATE THE PROTECTION. A. Work Product Protection Has Not Been Waived. For many of the same reasons that Ms. Giuffre has not waived her attorney-client privilege, the work-product protection has not been waived. Fed. R. Evid. 502’s protections against waiver apply not only to the attorney-client privilege but also to the work-product doctrine. On the facts of this case, Rule 502 thus extends all work-product protections that exist “under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred,” Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(2) – i.e., Florida law – as well as the protection that exists under federal law, Fed. R. Evid. 502(c)(1). Florida law provides that work-product protections extend to “documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable” if a party prepared those items “in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). The rationale supporting the work-product doctrine is that one party is not entitled to prepare his case through the investigative work product of his adversary where the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures. Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So.3d 612, 614 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2011). The work-product of the litigant, his attorney or agent, cannot be examined, absent rare and exceptional circumstances. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970). In Florida (as elsewhere), a party “can make a limited waiver of its . . . work product privilege.” Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). A waiver by disclosure only includes “other unrevealed communications only to the extent that they are relevant to the communication already disclosed.” Id. (citing Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So.2d 329, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). Waiver by disclosure does “not mean . . . that Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 40 28 voluntary disclosure of confidential information effectively waives the privilege as to all conversations, or the whole breadth of discussion which may have taken place.” Procacci v. Seitlin, 497 So. 2d 969, 969-70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (citing Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Blondis, 412 F.Supp. 286, 288 (N.D.Ill.1976)). Instead, waiver by disclosure is confined to “that specific subject during that particular conversation.” Procacci, 497 So. 2d at 970 (quoting Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 461 (N.D. Cal.1978)).22 As with her attorney-client privilege argument, Defendant has not even cited Florida law on waiver of work-product protection, much less explained how she meets its demanding requirements. Moreover, the illustrations she provides do not prove any general waiver of work￾product protection. For example, Defendant relies on the claim that Cassell and Edwards have waived work-product protection by disclosing a transcript of a portion of a 2011 telephone interview with Ms. Giuffre by attorneys Jack Scarola and Brad Edwards. But that recorded interview was never a confidential communication between Mr. Giuffre and the lawyers, but rather (as the transcript of the call itself makes clear) a communication that could be presented “to any jury that might ultimately have to hear these facts.” McCawley Decl., Ex. 15 at 1, transcript of Scarola/Edwards interview on April 7, 2011 (emphasis added). In other words, the recorded call was simply the functional equivalent of an affidavit – and affidavits are routinely disclosed with waiving work product protections, under the law of Florida and elsewhere. Defendant also argues that Cassell and Edwards waived work-product protection by filing a summary judgment motion in the Dershowitz case which contained supporting exhibits (e.g., flight logs, sworn testimony by third-party witnesses, and other evidence). Mot. to Compel 22 New York state law is to the same effect. See Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. 2d 154, 159, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179, 186 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (“ The disclosure of a document protected by the work-product rule does not result in a waiver of the privilege as to other documents.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 40 29 at 16. But providing information in support of a summary judgment motion is a routine step that attorneys take every day. While the materials produced are obviously not subject to work product protection, other materials and communications do not somehow become subject to discovery. Paradise Divers, Inc., 943 So. 2d at 814. B. Defendant Has Not Proven “Need” to Penetrate Work-Product Protection. Defendant’s argument on work product protection also simply assumes that it is the same as the attorney-client privilege and can be waived under an “at issue theory.” But the “at issue” legal theory Defendant relies on to argue (incorrectly) that attorney-client privilege has been waived applies only to that privilege. The work product doctrine is quite distinct from attorney￾client privilege, and application of the privileges and exceptions to them differ. See West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 9 So.3d 655, 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 2011), as revised on denial of reh’g (2011). The function of the work product doctrine is to protect counsel’s mental impressions. West Bend Mutual, 9 So.3d at 656. To pierce the privilege, Defendant must show “that the substantial equivalent of the material cannot be obtained by other means.” Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1385 (Fla.1994). Defendant has not even identified any specific work￾product she claims to need, much less shown why she cannot get the underlying information from other sources. Under the law of Florida (and elsewhere23), to establish “need,” a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested is critical to the theory of the 23 Both federal and New York state law extend work product protections similar to those found in Florida law. See, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947); N.Y. Civ. Practice Law & Rules § 3101(c) (McKinney). Indeed, New York state law may go even further than Florida’s and extends “absolute” work-product protection. See Charter One Bank, F.S.B. v. Midtown Rochester, L.L.C., 191 Misc. 2d 154, 159, 738 N.Y.S.2d 179, 185 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (section 3101(c) “affords absolute immunity from disclosure of attorney's work product.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 40 30 requestor’s case, or to some significant aspect of the case. Zirkelbach Const. Inc. v. Rajan, 93 So.3d 1124, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “[W]ell established in Florida is the principle that the unsworn analysis of a party’s attorney and/or a bare assertion of need and undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent [is] insufficient to satisfy this showing.” Butler v. Harter, 152 So.3d 705, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014); see Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So.2d 1188, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); State v. T.A., 528 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1988) (“[R]epresentations by counsel not made under oath and not subject to cross-examination, absent a stipulation, are not evidence). Further, Florida courts have held that “the showing of need encompasses a showing of diligence by the party seeking discovery of another party’s work product.” Butler v. Harter, 152 So.3d 705, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2014); see also CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter, 725 So.2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (quashing order granting motion to compel discovery because the record did not contain affidavits supporting plaintiff’s argument that it was unable to obtain the substantially equivalent information by other means without undue hardship); Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp., 866 So.2d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that need and undue hardship “must be demonstrated by affidavit or sworn testimony”); N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), (“[T]he unsworn assertions of plaintiff’s counsel were insufficient to constitute a showing of need and undue hardship.”), called into doubt on other grounds as stated in Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward v. Fain, 16 So.3d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Here, Defendant has ample information from which she can present her case. At the core of this case is whether Ms. Giuffre “lied” when she said that the Defendant recruited her to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant can, of course, testify to her interactions with Ms. Giuffre, as well as call other witnesses regarding the circumstances of those interactions. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 40 31 Defendant can also get information from her close friend, Epstein, about the circumstances of the interactions. Defendant and Epstein are not only good friends but they have a “common interest agreement” that facilitates transfer of information between the two of them. Finally, to make her showing that she is unable to obtain “equivalent information” from other sources, Defendant would have to explain in detail what other steps she has taken to secure information from other sources, including not only Epstein but other witnesses present at Epstein’s mansion. Having failed to do any of this, Defendant has not made a sufficient showing to obtain work-product information. Pupillo, 54 So.3d at 614. IV. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATTORNEY JACK SCAROLA ARE COVERED BY A JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT AND ARE THUS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK-PRODUCTION PROTECTION. As a tag-along argument at the end of her motion, Defendant argues that Ms. Giuffre has not established the existence of a common interest or joint defense agreement that embraces Jack Scarola, the attorney for Cassell and Edwards in the Dershowitz litigation. Mot. to Compel at 23-24. Disclosure of that agreement involved notice to the parties to the agreement. Now that appropriate notice has been provided, the agreement can be – and has been – disclosed. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 16, common interest agreement. In view of the existence of the valid agreement, it is clear that the referenced communications involving Scarola are protected. See, e.g., Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 1756918, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016) (noting common interest agreement protection) (citing GUS Consulting GMBH v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 20 Misc. 3d 539, 542, 858 N.Y.S.2d 591, 593 (Sup. Ct. 2008)). CONCLUSION Defendant’s motion to compel should be denied in its entirety. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 40 32 Dated: June 1, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-520224 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 1st day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. 24 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 40 33 Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-18 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 40 *,8))5( 96 0$;:(// 'HSRVLWLRQ 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF WK6WUHHW6XLWH 'HQYHU&RORUDGR  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 A I believe this is when I was hoping to 2 join the CVRA case. 3 Q All right. And do you know when this 4 document was filed? 5 And actually, just to be clear, about 6 halfway there's actually a second document that was 7 filed. So this is a composite exhibit. Let me be 8 very clear. 9 So after page 14 -- I'm sorry, 13, there's 10 a second document that is styled Jane Doe #3 and Jane 11 Doe #4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for 12 Joinder In Action. 13 Do you see that? 14 A Did you say page 14? 15 Q It is on the 14th page of this document. 16 Do you see that? 17 A I do. 18 Q And so this composite Exhibit 2 has both a 19 motion and a corrected motion. 20 Do you see that? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And were both of those pleadings 23 authorized by you to be filed? 24 A Yes. 25 Q In other words, you wanted to join the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 CVRA action in or about December 30th, 2014, correct? 2 A I -- I'm not aware of the exact dates. 3 There's no dates on this. But I did try to join the 4 motion, yes. 5 Q All right. If you can look at the top 6 line of the document. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Does it say, Entered on FLSD -- 9 A Oh, it does, too, I'm sorry, yes. 10 Q That's all right. So does that refresh 11 your memory as to about when you first sought to join 12 the CVRA action? 13 A Yes. 14 Q December 30th, 2014, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And the corrected motion was filed a few 17 days later, correct? 18 A Yes, correct. 19 Q If I could turn to Defendant's Exhibit 3, 20 which was January 21st. 21 (Exhibit 3 marked.) 22 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. 23 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Do you recognize this 24 document? 25 A Yes, I do. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 physical features of Ghislaine Maxwell? 2 A I can tell you that she had very large 3 natural breasts. I can tell you that her pubic hair 4 was dark brown, nearly black. I don't remember any 5 specific birthmarks or moles that I could point out 6 that would be relevant. 7 Q Any scar? 8 A I don't remember any scars. 9 Q Any tattoos? 10 A No tattoos. 11 Q When did you next go to the El Brillo 12 house? 13 A I believe it would have been the next day. 14 Q You believe it would have been or was it? 15 MR. EDWARDS: Form. 16 A I know that it was consecutive, that I 17 continued to go there after my first -- the first 18 time that the abuse took place there. It was 19 consecutive that I was there, I believe, over the 20 next course of weeks. 21 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) What day of the week 22 was the first time you went? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q Do you know whether you went the very next 25 day or not? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 A I believe I did. 2 Q All right. How did you get there the very 3 next day? 4 MR. EDWARDS: Form. 5 A I believe my dad dropped me off again. 6 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) When you say you 7 believe, do you recall him doing that or are you 8 guessing? 9 A I don't -- well, this is how I figure 10 this. I don't remember Ghislaine picking me up from 11 Mar-a-Lago. I didn't have my own car. So the only 12 way I could have really gotten there would have been 13 my dad picking me up -- I mean, sorry, dropping me 14 off. 15 Q Do you have a distinct recollection of 16 your father dropping you off there more than one day 17 in a row? 18 A Yes. 19 Q You do not recall the car he was driving? 20 A Like I said, he always drove trucks. 21 That's as good as I can get. 22 Q And so -- and you worked on weekends as 23 well at Mar-a-Lago or no? 24 A No. 25 Q So the second day would have had to be Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 A I wouldn't say directly. 2 Q How -- 3 A I'd say I stayed with my parents for -- 4 like, I think I finished school at Crestwood. So I 5 would have been in, I don't know, I guess eighth 6 grade, finished eighth grade. And then -- I don't 7 know. I really don't know. Around eighth grade. 8 Q You went to Growing Together? 9 A I think -- I think it was then. 10 Q And how many years did you live at Growing 11 Together? 12 A Over a year. 13 Q Were you ever in foster care? 14 A What Growing Together was, was like a 15 group home that sent you away to foster parents every 16 night. 17 Q So you lived in other people's homes 18 during the period of time you were assigned to 19 Growing Together? 20 A Well, you stayed at Growing Together 21 during the day and then at night you get sent home 22 with parents. 23 Q Did you go to school while you were at 24 Growing Together? 25 A Yeah, they offer education there. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 Q So the education was at Growing Together? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q You did not attend a Palm Beach County -- 4 A I did, but you had to earn your levels up 5 to be able to go outside. So I don't remember what 6 level you have to get up to, to go out to another 7 school. I think there was like seven levels or 8 something. And you had to make it to, like, level 4 9 to be able to go to outside school. 10 Q So for some period of time you were 11 assigned to Growing Together and you were going to 12 school at Growing Together. And for some period of 13 time you were going to other schools and coming back 14 to Growing Together? 15 A Correct. 16 Q And then when you came back to Growing 17 Together, you were sent to spend the night at a 18 family's home? 19 A Yes. 20 Q So you never slept at Growing Together? 21 A No. 22 Q Did you live -- other than living at or 23 staying at Growing Together during the day and 24 sleeping at these other homes at night, is there 25 anywhere else that you recall living in the period Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 a 3. I think it's . I really can't make out 3 the telephone number. 4 Q Okay. Do you see Relationship? Can you 5 read that? 6 A Friend. 7 Q Okay. Do you see just below that there's 8 a line that says number 21? 9 A Do not stop -- sorry, Do not sign 10 application until requested to do so by 11 administrating an oath. 12 Q Okay. 13 A Applicant's signature age 13 or older. 14 Q Oh, it's by the signature line? 15 A Yeah. 16 Q And that's your signature? 17 A Yes. 18 Q All right. And this is the document that 19 you recall filling out for your first passport? 20 A I don't recall doing it, but yes, it's in 21 my handwriting and it's got all of my information on 22 it. 23 Q Okay. And on line -- box 23 it's got your 24 driver's license checked off, right? 25 A July 23. Yeah, I really can't make out I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 And when they say massage, that means erotic, okay? 2 That's their term for it. I think there are plenty 3 of other witnesses that can attest to what massage 4 actually means. 5 And I'm telling you that Ghislaine told me 6 to go to Glenn Dubin and give him a massage, which 7 means sex. 8 Q Okay. So Glenn -- Ghislaine Maxwell told 9 you to go give a massage to Glenn Dubin? 10 A Correct. 11 Q That's your testimony? 12 A That is my testimony. 13 Q All right. Ghislaine Maxwell told you to 14 go give a massage to , correct? 15 A Correct. 16 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you to give a 17 massage to Prince Andrew, correct? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Ghislaine Maxwell told you to give a 20 massage to Bill Richardson, correct? 21 A Correct. 22 Q When did Ghislaine Maxwell tell you to 23 give a massage to Bill Richardson? 24 A I don't know dates. 25 Q Where were you? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 A When it happened? 2 Q When Ghislaine Maxwell used the words, Go 3 give a massage to Bill Richardson, where were you? 4 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 5 Mischaracterizes her testimony. 6 A I can't tell you where we were. I know 7 where I was sent to. I don't know where we were when 8 she told me to do that. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where were you sent 10 to -- 11 A New Mexico. 12 Q -- by Ghislaine Maxwell? 13 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 14 Mischaracterizes her testimony again. 15 A Are you smiling at me because -- 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) No, I'm asking you to 17 answer the question. 18 A I have answered the question. I was sent 19 to New Mexico. 20 Q Okay. Where were you sent from? 21 A I already answered that. I don't know 22 where I was sent from. 23 Q Okay. 24 A I was flying everywhere with these people. 25 Q Where were you sent by Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel? 2 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 3 Mischaracterized her testimony. 4 A Many places. 5 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Ghislaine Maxwell sent 6 you to many places to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 8 A It happened at many places, yes. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) You had sex with Jean 10 Luc Brunel at many places is what you're saying, 11 correct? 12 A I was sent to Jean Luc Brunel at many 13 places to have sex with him. 14 Q When did Ghislaine Maxwell send you to a 15 place to have sex with Jean Luc Brunel? 16 A You are asking -- 17 MR. EDWARDS: Form. 18 A -- me to answer the impossible. 19 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. When did 20 Ghislaine Maxwell send you to have sex with the owner 21 of a large hotel chain? 22 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 23 Mischaracterization. 24 A I'm going to keep answering the questions 25 the same way that I keep answering them. I don't Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 know where it was when she said to go do this. 2 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Okay. Where were you 3 sent to have sex with the owner of a large hotel 4 chain by Ghislaine Maxwell? 5 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 6 A I believe that was one time in France. 7 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Which time in France? 8 A I believe it was around the same time that 9 Naomi Campbell had a birthday party. 10 Q Where did you have sex with the owner of a 11 large hotel chain in France around the time of Naomi 12 Campbell's birthday party? 13 A In his own cabana townhouse thing. It was 14 part of a hotel, but I wouldn't call it a hotel. 15 Jeffrey was staying there. Ghislaine was 16 staying there. Emmy was staying there. I was 17 staying there. This other guy was staying there. I 18 don't know his name. 19 I was instructed by Ghislaine to go and 20 give him an erotic massage. 21 Q She used the words erotic massage? 22 A No, that's my word. The word massage is 23 what they would use. That's their code word. 24 Q Was she in the room when you gave this 25 erotic massage to the owner of a large hotel chain? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 A No, she was not in the room. She was in 2 another cabana. 3 Q And other than telling you to go give the 4 owner of this large hotel chain a massage, do you 5 remember any other words she used to you to direct 6 you in what you should do? 7 A Not at the time, no. 8 Q Where did -- where were you and where was 9 Ms. Maxwell when she directed you to go have sex with 10 Marvin Minsky? 11 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 12 A I don't know. 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Where did you go to 14 have sex with Marvin Minsky? 15 A I believe it was the U.S. Virgin Islands, 16 Jeff's -- sorry, Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S. 17 Virgin Islands. 18 Q And when was that? 19 A I don't know. 20 Q Do you have any time of year? 21 A No. 22 Q Do you know how old you were? 23 A No. 24 Q Other than Glenn Dubin, , 25 Prince Andrew, Jean Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 another prince, the large hotel chain owner and 2 Marvin Minsky, is there anyone else that Ghislaine 3 Maxwell directed you to go have sex with? 4 A I am definitely sure there is. But can I 5 remember everybody's name? No. 6 Q Okay. Can you remember anything else 7 about them? 8 A Look, I've given you what I know right 9 now. I'm sorry. This is very hard for me and very 10 frustrating to have to go over this. I don't -- I 11 don't recall all of the people. There was a large 12 amount of people that I was sent to. 13 Q Do you have any notes of all these people 14 that you were sent to? 15 A No, I don't. 16 Q Where are your notes? 17 A I burned them. 18 Q When did you burn them? 19 A In a bonfire when I lived at Titusville 20 because I was sick of going through this shit. 21 Q Did you have lawyers who were representing 22 you at the time you built a bonfire and burned these 23 notes? 24 A I've been represented for a long time, but 25 it was not under the instruction of my lawyers to do Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 this. My husband and I were pretty spiritual people 2 and we believed that these memories were worth 3 burning. 4 Q So you burned notes of the men with whom 5 you had sex while you were represented by counsel in 6 litigation, correct? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 8 A This wasn't anything that was a public 9 document. This was my own private journal, and I 10 didn't want it anymore. So we burned it. 11 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) When did you write 12 that journal? 13 A Just over time. I started writing it 14 probably in, I don't know, I can't speculate, 2012, 15 2011. 16 Q So you did not write this journal at the 17 time it happened? 18 A No. 19 Q You started writing this journal 20 approximately a decade after you claim you finished 21 being sexually trafficked, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And you started writing a journal after 24 you had a lawyer, correct? 25 A Correct. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 Q Including Mr. Edwards, who is sitting 2 right here, correct? 3 A Correct. 4 Q What did that journal look like? 5 A It was green. 6 Q And what else? 7 A It was just a spiral notebook. 8 Q Okay. And what did you put into that 9 green spiral notebook? 10 A Bad memories. Things that I've gone 11 through, lots of things, you know. I can't tell you. 12 There was a lot of pages. It was over 300 pages in 13 that book. 14 Q Did you ever show that book to your 15 lawyers? 16 A No. 17 Q Did you show that book to anyone? 18 A My husband. 19 Q Did you show it to anyone else besides 20 your husband? 21 A No. 22 Q Did you tear out pages and give them to 23 Sharon Churcher? 24 A No, I wrote -- those pages that you're 25 talking about, I wrote for her specifically. She Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 wanted to know about the Prince Andrew incident. 2 Q So that's a different piece of paper? 3 A Yeah, that's just random paper. 4 Q So you had a green spiral notebook that 5 you began sometime in 2011 or 2012 in which you wrote 6 down your recollections about what had happened to 7 you, and you burned that in a bonfire in 2013. 8 Did I get that right? 9 A You got that right. 10 Q And do you have no other names of people 11 to whom you claim Ghislaine Maxwell directed you to 12 have sex, correct? 13 A At this time, no. 14 Q Is there any document that would refresh 15 your recollection that you could look at? 16 A If you have a document you'd like to show 17 me, I would be glad to look at it and tell you the 18 names I recognize off of that. 19 Q I'm just asking you if there's a document 20 you know of that has this list of names in it? 21 A Not in front of me, no. 22 Q Where is the original of the photograph 23 that has been widely circulated in the press of you 24 with Prince Andrew? 25 A I probably still have it. It's not in my Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 possession right now. 2 Q Where is it? 3 A Probably in some storage boxes. 4 Q Where? 5 A In Sydney. 6 Q Where in Sydney? 7 A At some family's house. We got the boxes 8 shipped to Australia, and they were picked up off the 9 porch by my nephews and brought to their house. 10 Q Which is where? 11 A In Sydney. 12 Q Where in Sydney? 13 A 14 Q And who lives in that house? 15 A Well, it's owned by my mother-in-law and 16 father-in-law, but my nephews live in the house. 17 Q What are their names? 18 A I'm not giving you the names of my 19 nephews. 20 Q What's the address of the house? 21 A Why would you want that? 22 Q I want to know where the photograph is. 23 I'm asking you where the photograph is. And you've 24 just told me it's somewhere in ? 25 A Yes. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 Q So where in is the photograph 2 located? 3 A If I can't 100 percent say that the 4 photograph is there, it could be at my house that I 5 presently live in. I'm not going to give you the 6 address of my nephews' residence. 7 Q When is the last time you saw the 8 photograph in person? 9 A When I packed and left America. 10 Q Colorado? 11 A Yes. 12 Q All right. So you had that photograph 13 here with you in Colorado? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What's on the back of the photograph? 16 A I'm sorry? 17 Q Is there anything on the back of the 18 photograph? 19 A There's like the date it was printed, but 20 no writing or anything. 21 Q Okay. Does it say where it was printed? 22 A I don't believe so. I think it just -- I 23 don't remember. I just remember there's a date on 24 it. 25 Q Whose camera was it taken with? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 A My little yellow Kodak camera. 2 Q Who took the picture? 3 A Jeffrey Epstein. 4 Q And where did you have it developed? 5 A I believe when I got back to America. 6 Q So where? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q Palm Beach? 9 A I don't know. 10 Q What is the date the photograph was 11 printed? 12 A I believe it's in March 2001. 13 Q Okay. 14 A But that's just off of my photographic 15 memory. I don't -- it could be different, but I 16 think it's March 2001. 17 Q You have a photographic memory? 18 A I'm not saying I have a photographic 19 memory. But if I'd look at the back of the photo and 20 I remember what it says, I believe it was March 2001. 21 Q Did the photograph ever leave your 22 possession for a while? 23 A I gave it to the FBI. 24 Q Okay. And when did you get it back? 25 A When they took copies of it. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 Q When was that? 2 A 2011. 3 Q When they came to interview you? 4 A Yes. 5 Q So from 2011 until you left Colorado it 6 was in your personal possession? 7 A Yes. 8 Q What other documents related to this case 9 are in that, storage boxes in Australia? 10 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 11 A Documents related to this case -- there -- 12 I don't know. I really can't tell you. I mean, 13 there's seven boxes full of Nerf guns, my kids' toys, 14 photos. I don't know what other documents would be 15 in there. 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did anyone search 17 those documents after you received discovery requests 18 from us in this case? 19 A I haven't been able to obtain those boxes. 20 I can't get them sent back up to me. It's going to 21 cost me a large amount of money. And right now I'm 22 trying to look after my family, so I'm not able to 23 afford to get them up. 24 Q You live in Australia, correct? 25 A I do. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 22 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  1 read it. 2 MS. MENNINGER: We're going off the 3 record. 4 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's fine. She'll 5 read. 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: That concludes today's 7 proceedings. We're off the record at 5:28. 8 (Proceedings concluded at 5:28 p.m.) 9 10 * * * * * * * 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-19 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT ......................................... Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 11 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit, and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Despite having taken only three depositions to date, Plaintiff prematurely requests permission to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) and to conduct 17 separate depositions, almost twice the limit. Without legal support, Plaintiff attempts to conflate the presumptive time limitation for each deposition of seven hours with a right to take a total of 70 hours of depositions. This is an absurd reading of the Federal Rules. The presumptive ten deposition limitation is an independent limitation, and speaks to the number of separate deponents, not deposition time. Indeed, the two independent limitations do not even appear in the same section of the rules. The heart of Plaintiff’s argument is that Ms. Maxwell inconveniently testified and denied Plaintiff’s claims, rather than invoking the Fifth Amendment. This dashed Plaintiff’s apparent hope to obtain an adverse inference, rather than actually having to prove her case against Ms. Maxwell. Instead, Ms. Maxwell fully testified for the entire 7 hours, responded to all questions posed to her,1 and testified based on her actual knowledge. Ms. Maxwell’s testimony simply bears no relevance to Plaintiff’s request to take more than 10 depositions of non-party witnesses. Conspicuously absent from Plaintiff’s motion are (a) any actual information she believes these witnesses may provide which is neither cumulative nor duplicative of other information already disclosed in this case, (b) the fact the information can be obtained from other sources, 1 Plaintiff flatly mis-represents to the Court that Ms. Maxwell “refused” to answer the questions posed to her, as the actual transcript amply demonstrates. Ms. Maxwell did not avoid any questions and answered all questions to the best of her recollection relating to alleged events 15 years ago. The majority of the bullet point “summary” of the matters about which Ms. Maxwell could not testify were based either on a lack of any personal knowledge or the fact that the events claimed by Plaintiff did not actually happen. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 11 2 and (c) facts demonstrating that the burden and expense of the discovery is justified by the needs of this case. Indeed, she has not established that the testimony is even relevant to the actual issues in this matter. Plaintiff’s inability to establish these factors requires denial of the motion. I. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST IS PREMATURE First, the request to exceed the presumptive ten-deposition limit is premature. “[C]ourts generally will not grant leave to expand the number of depositions until the moving party has exhausted the ten depositions permitted as of right under Rule 30(a)(2)(A) or the number stipulated to by the opposing party.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV￾232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). This guideline makes sense because a “moving party must not only justify those depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken.” Id. (citing Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because “a party could indirectly circumvent the cap on depositions by exhausting the maximum allotted number to those that she could not justify under the Rule 26(b)(2) standards, and then seek[ ] leave to exceed the limit in order to take depositions that she could substantiate.” Id. at 483. Here, Plaintiff seeks a pre-emptive determination that she should be permitted 17 depositions, almost twice the presumptive limit, yet her proposed depositions are not calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. By way of example, Plaintiff identifies Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers), and Jeffrey Epstein as alleged “co-conspirators” with each other. She requests the depositions of each. Plaintiff anticipates each will invoke the Fifth Amendment – in other words, she will not obtain any discoverable information from them. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 11 3 Plaintiff makes a bizarre argument that somehow this testimony can be used to create an adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell,2 despite the fact that Ms. Maxwell did not invoke the Fifth Amendment and she testified fully and answered every question posed to her with the only exception the irrelevant and harassing questions Plaintiff posed to her concerning her adult, consensual sexual activities. In other words, depositions of Marcincova, Kellen and Epstein would serve Plaintiff’s goal to make a convoluted legal argument, not to actually seek discoverable information. In light of this, the “burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If Plaintiff chooses to use her depositions in this manner, she risks utilizing three of her available 10 depositions for an illegitimate purpose. She should not be rewarded with a pre-emptive carte blanche in advance to take additional depositions. II. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE, AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF THE DISPUTE Plaintiff has not met the requisite showing to permit in excess of 10 depositions. In Sigala v. Spikouris, 00 CV 0983(ILG), 2002 WL 721078 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002), the Court set forth the general principles relevant to a party's application to conduct more than ten depositions: 2 Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by a third party witness cannot be used to create an adverse inference against a party in a civil action. See United States v. Dist. Council of New York City & Vicinity of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 90 CIV. 5722 (CSH), 1993 WL 159959, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1993) (“the general rule [is] that an individual's claim of Fifth Amendment protection is personal, and does not give rise to adverse inferences against others.”); Brenner v. World Boxing Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982) (“Furthermore, since King was a non-party witness, no adverse inference against appellees could have been drawn from his refusal to testify.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 11 4 The Federal Rules presumptively limit the number of depositions that each side may conduct to ten. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2) (A) (“A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken ....”); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,104 F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Bd., No. Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at *2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to “enable courts to maintain a ‘tighter rein’ on the extent of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of ‘[w]ide-ranging discovery’ . . . .” Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass.1995) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such individual.” Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 692 (D.Kan.1996). “The factors relevant to determining whether a party should be entitled to more than ten depositions are now set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)3 and include whether (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive, (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action, and (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 3 Rule 26(b)(1) has since been modified to read “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” The scope of discovery permitted by 26(b)(1) is “non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Thus, the factors to be considered have simply been moved to a new number with cross reference. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 11 5 Weighing these factors, there is no basis for permitting more than the presumptive ten deposition limit. First, as highlighted by the motion, the information purportedly sought is cumulative and duplicative. By way of example, Plaintiff has already deposed Johanna Sjoberg (a former Epstein employee), Juan Alessi (a former Epstein employee), and David Rodgers4 (former Epstein Pilot). She further seeks to depose Maria Alessi and Jo Fontanella (former Epstein household employees), as well as and Emmy Taylor (identified as assistants to Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein). The information Plaintiff claims each of the witnesses may have is identical to that of each other – what they observed while working for Epstein. Plaintiff goes so far as to state that Maria Alessi’s deposition is expected to “corroborate” the observations of her husband’s. Plaintiff admits that the purpose in seeking the additional depositions is “obtaining witnesses, like Ms. Sjoberg, who can corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Yet, Ms. Sjoberg did not “corroborate that [Plaintiff] is telling the truth.” Instead, she testified that she was hired as an adult by Jeffrey Epstein to provide professional massages, that Ms. Maxwell never asked her for any type of sexual massage, that she never saw Plaintiff giving a massage to Ms. Maxwell nor did she see Ms. Maxwell receive a massage from any underage girl, indeed, in her 5 plus years working for Mr. Epstein, she never saw any person underage at his home. Regardless, Plaintiff is looking in vain for more testimony of exactly the same character, precisely the type of testimony the presumptive limit is intended to prevent. Similarly, the expected deposition testimony of former Palm Beach Detective Joe Recarey and former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter are duplicative of each other. 4 Mr. Rodgers deposition, held last Friday and requiring a separate trip to Florida for Colorado counsel after the scheduled court hearing on Thursday, served simply to authenticate flight logs. There are far more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive methods by which such information could have been obtained, such as a verifying affidavit, yet Plaintiff chose to unnecessarily burden counsel, the witness and counsel for the witness with a 3 hour deposition to accomplish the same end. Jane Doe 2 - ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 11 6 Putting aside the admissibility of this testimony, it appears that both men were involved in the investigation of Mr. Epstein and are expected to testify about their investigation. Plaintiff’s allegations were not a part of their investigation, which took place years after Plaintiff left the country. Moreover, their investigation did not involve Ms. Maxwell. Again, such duplicative and irrelevant deposition testimony speaks to the intended purpose of the ten-deposition limit, not a reason to exceed that limit. The same holds true for Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers) and Jeffrey Epstein, each of whom Plaintiff anticipates will not respond to questions and invoke their Fifth Amendment right. As discussed above, such invocation has no bearing on the issues in this matter. Moreover, it is obviously cumulative and duplicative. Plaintiff also identifies Rinaldo Rizzo and Jean Luc Brunel but fails to provide any information from which Ms. Maxwell or the Court could identify the subject matter of their expected testimony. Thus, it is unclear how these individuals have information that differs from or would add to the other proposed deponents. It is the Plaintiff’s burden to explain to the Court why these depositions should be permitted if they exceed the presumptive limit, why the information would not be cumulative, and its relevance to the important issues in the action, or the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. She simply fails to provide any information by which the Court can assess these factors, and thus should not be permitted to exceed the deposition limit based on her proffer. III. THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS SINGLE COUNT DEFAMATION CASE This case is a simple defamation case. Plaintiff, through her counsel, filed a pleading making certain claims regarding “Jane Doe No. #3” – the Plaintiff – and her alleged Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 11 7 “circumstances.” See Complaint. Ms. Maxwell denied the allegations made stating they were “untrue” and “obvious lies.” Plaintiff claims these statements are defamatory because she has been called a “liar.” “A public figure claiming defamation under New York law must establish that ‘the statements ... complain[ed] of were (1) of and concerning [the plaintiff], (2) likely to be understood as defamatory by the ordinary person, (3) false, and (4) published with actual malice.’” Biro v. Conde Nast, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 807 F.3d 541 (2d Cir. 2015), and aff'd, 622 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2015). If Ms. Maxwell’s statements are essentially true – Plaintiff lied – Plaintiff cannot establish her claim, and it is an absolute defense.5 Further, if Plaintiff cannot prove actual malice by Ms. Maxwell, her claim fails. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 842 F.2d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 1988) (limited purpose public figure must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the alleged defamatory statement with actual malice, “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. 241, 280 (1964)). That is, Plaintiff must prove that Ms. Maxwell permitted the publication of the statement knowing it to be untrue. None of the witnesses identified are listed as having discoverable information regarding any of the elements of this claim. None is claimed to have direct knowledge to confirm the truth of Plaintiff’s claims about what happened to her, that the acts she claims she participated in 5 There is only one public statement that existed on January 2, 2015 to which Ms. Maxwell was responding in the statement by her press agent. The document is the Joinder Motion filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case on behalf of Plaintiff by her attorneys, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, p. 4. The very first line describing Jane Doe #3 Circumstances is false, as Plaintiff now concedes. It read: “In 1999, Jane Doe #3 was approached by Ghislaine Maxwell,” and continuing that “Maxwell persuaded Jane Doe # 3 (who was only fifteen years old) to come to Epstein's mansion . . .” Plaintiff now concedes that she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein in 1999, and she was not 15 years old. Menninger Decl., Ex. A at 26-29. No amount of “circumstantial evidence” can overcome the fact that Ms. Maxwell’s statement was correct and that statements in the Joinder Motion were untrue. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 11 8 occurred or that they occurred with the people she claims to have been involved. Rather, each witness identified as being able to provide their observations regarding “other” allegedly underage girls, their own personal experience,6 or beliefs about Plaintiff’s credibility. None of this is relevant. This is not a case about Jeffery Epstein or the alleged “modus operandi of the Epstein organization.” This is a simple case of if Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the allegations made by Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s own interactions with Maxwell was defamatory, and if Ms. Maxwell acted with actual malice in issuing the denial. Plaintiff’s attempt to amplify this proceeding into something broader should not be condoned. Because the evidence sought is nothing more than extraneous inadmissible “circumstantial evidence”7 irrelevant to proving the essential elements of the claim, “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Atkinson, 2009 WL 890682, at *1. As such, the request for the additional depositions should be denied. WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to permit in excess of the presumptive ten deposition limit be denied; alternatively, if in excess of ten depositions are permitted, Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be required to pay all costs and attorney’s fees 6 The information sought is also inadmissible. Plaintiff seeks testimony from witness who she claims will testify to experience similar to her stories and this will “corroborate Ms. Giuffre's account description of the motive, way in which Epstein and his co-conspirators created opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, and to the specifics that make up the criminal signature of Epstein and his co-conspirators.” Motion at 15-16. Such evidence is prohibited by FRE 404(b), which states “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Furthermore, no other witness has claimed as Plaintiff does that Ghislaine Maxwell sexually abused them, sexually trafficked them, or that she partook in daily sex with any underage girls. Plaintiff’s claim stands in isolation because it is fictional. 7 This “circumstantial evidence” has no bearing on the truthfulness of the stories published by Plaintiff. It is equally likely to show that Plaintiff became aware of the allegations of others and decided to hop on the band wagon. She then made up similar claims for the purpose of getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the media for publicizing her allegations and identifying well know public figures whose names she has seen documents that she reviewed or other stories she had read. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 11 9 associated with attending any deposition occurring outside 100 miles of the Courthouse for the Southern District of New York pursuant to S.D.N.Y L.Civ.R. 30.1. Dated: June 6, 2016. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 11 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-20 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 11 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT Sigrid McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 15 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1 II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6 III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 15 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3 Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9 LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7 Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 15 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only a total of three additional depositions. Notably, while Defendant contests Ms. Giuffre’s motion, Defendant has herself unilaterally – and without seeking any Court approval – set twelve witnesses for deposition in this matter. In contrast to Defendant’s unilateral action, Ms. Giuffre has properly sought this Court’s permission. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to take the three additional depositions. I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow “duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said. For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.1 But, as the mere 1 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twenty￾one-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job” when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 15 2 fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement. Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the relevant facts from being developed. Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list2 of witnesses she needs to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows: For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr. Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow; Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason: first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there were other girls around.). That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms. Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms. Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant. 2 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, , Jo Jo Fontanella, and Michael Reiter. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 -------------- -------- - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 15 3 x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms. Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove Ms. Maxwell’s claims. Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions – depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted. All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr. Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by Defendant. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 15 4 Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms. Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part, caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified 15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 3 Mr. Rizzo testified about another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 15 5 as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.4 Finally, the Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses have testified she possesses. . Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed. Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional depositions is a reasonable request. While Defendant opposes Ms. Giuffre’s request for Court approval of more than ten depositions, she has unilaterally noticed more than ten depositions without bothering to seek approval. As of the date of this filing, Defendant’s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for 4 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 15 6 deposition testimony – the almost the exact same number Ms. Giuffre is seeking.5 Defendant cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s additional depositions while she, herself, is trying to take more than ten without leave of court.6 It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg, Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam, proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious lies.” II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms. 5 Defendant’s counsel has taken the deposition testimony of (1) Ms. Giuffre; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s mother (Lynn Miller); (3) Ms. Giuffre’s father (Sky Roberts); and (4) Ms. Giuffre’s physician (Dr. Olson). Defendant’s counsel has noticed the following witnesses for deposition: (5) Mr. Austrich; (6) Mr. Figueroa; (7) Ms. Degorgieou; (8) a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein; (9) Mr. Weisfield; (10) Ms. Churcher; (11) Ms. Boylan; and (12) the 30(b)(6) witness for Victims Refuse Silence. 6 Defendant has unilaterally scheduled - without consulting counsel for Ms. Giuffre - at least two of these depositions for days when depositions of Ms. Giuffre’s witnesses have been set. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 15 7 Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.7 That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms. Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner. Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”). Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however, Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were 7 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp. at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 15 8 brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case. In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,8 Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against co￾conspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20- 22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and 8 In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself discussing Ms. Giuffre. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 15 9 drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive factors: (1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party; (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation; (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects. Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial. III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at 2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which depositions she should prioritize. 9 9 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to depose. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 15 10 An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore, that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions. Dated: June 13, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 15 11 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-520210 10 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 15 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-21 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 15 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v . Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ____________________________/ DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Johanna Sjoberg’s Deposition Transcript excerpts dated May 18, 2016. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Rinaldo Rizzo’s Rough Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 10, 2016. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Juan Alessi’s Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 1, 2016. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 2 Dated: June 13, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-22 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 1 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS ------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------x May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 Page 21 1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived? 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the 4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the 5 living room. 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you 7 came up to the living room? 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that 11 time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what happened next? 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the 18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's 19 when I knew who he was. 20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like? 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 Page 22 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I 2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand 3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my 4 breast, and they took a photo. 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? 6 A. I don't recall. 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was 8 taken? 9 A. I did not. 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the -- 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What happened next? 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who 18 remained in that room? 19 A. I don't. 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that 21 room? 22 A. I don't. 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York 25 house? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 Page 141 1 always covered himself with a towel. 2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to 3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever 4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Yes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in 9 response to that? 10 A. I did bring one girl named -- 11 no. -- it was some girl named 12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I 13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over; 14 however, they never called her to come. 15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one 16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a 17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And what did she do? 20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session, 21 twice. 22 Q. Twice. 23 Did anything sexual in nature happen 24 during the session? 25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 Page 142 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it 2 down. 3 Q. Anything else? 4 A. That was the conversation that he had told 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the 6 girl by the pool. 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls 9 around? 10 A. She implied that, yes. 11 Q. In what way? 12 A. Sexually. 13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you 16 also previously stated that during the camera 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not 18 finishing the job. 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that 24 question. 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 Page 143 1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with 2 respect to the camera? 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not 5 brought him to orgasm. 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging 9 Jeffrey? 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: I can answer? 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that 14 is what was expected of me. 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. 20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was 21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting 22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up, 23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow 24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he 25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 Page 150 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was it in the context of anything? 3 A. About the camera that she had bought for 4 me. 5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the 6 camera that she bought for you and taking 7 photographs of you? 8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some 9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of 10 myself. 11 Q. What did you say? 12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never 13 ended up following through. I think I tried once. 14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct? 15 A. Exactly. 16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified 17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said 18 were implied to you. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure 21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that 24 led you to believe that was her implication? 25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 Page 151 1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's 2 why there were other girls around. 3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any 4 other girls? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists? 9 A. Not specifically. 10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house 11 that were not massage therapists, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. is another person that was around, 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. There were other people he traveled with? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: 20 Q. Correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Other girls? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Adults? 25 A. Yes. - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 Page 159 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 4 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify 6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me 7 and was duly sworn. 8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 9 18th day of May, 2016. 10 11 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 12 Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. FF911443 13 Expires: 2/16/21 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-23 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT Sigrid McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 1 On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpt from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough” transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 16 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 16 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1 II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6 III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 16 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3 Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9 LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7 Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 16 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only a total of three additional depositions. Notably, while Defendant contests Ms. Giuffre’s motion, Defendant has herself unilaterally – and without seeking any Court approval – set twelve witnesses for deposition in this matter. In contrast to Defendant’s unilateral action, Ms. Giuffre has properly sought this Court’s permission. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to take the three additional depositions. I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow “duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said. For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.2 But, as the mere 2 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twenty￾one-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job” when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 16 2 fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement. Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the relevant facts from being developed. Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list3 of witnesses she needs to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows: For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr. Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow; Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason: first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there were other girls around.). That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms. Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms. Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant. 3 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, Jo Jo Fontanella, Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 16 3 x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms. Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove Ms. Maxwell’s claims. Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions – depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted. All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr. Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by Defendant. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 16 4 Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms. Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part, caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified 15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 4 Mr. Rizzo testified about another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls 4 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. *52:6-7; *55:23-57:23. “Q. How old was this girl? A. 15 years old.” “What did she say? A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that, and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I’m having a casual conversation, that quickly I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said they asked me for sex, I said no. . . . And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and phone and gave it to Ghislaine Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened. And I said threatened? She says yes, I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this. . . And she said that before she got there, she was threatened again by Jeffrey and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had mentioned earlier, about – again, the word she used was sex. Q. And during this time that you’re saying she is rambling, is her demeanor continues to be what you described it? A. Yes. Q. Was she in fear? A. Yes”. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 16 5 as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.5 Finally, the Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses have testified she possesses. For example, Mr. Alessi testified that Defendant kept a large book of naked photos that she took of young girls. Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed. Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional depositions is a reasonable request. While Defendant opposes Ms. Giuffre’s request for Court approval of more than ten depositions, she has unilaterally noticed more than ten depositions without bothering to seek approval. As of the date of this filing, Defendant’s counsel has issued twelve subpoenas for 5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. “Q. So in the house, tell me if I am wrong, you have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and approximately 11 girls? A. Yes, somewhere between 11 and 12. Q. Can you describe the 11 to 12 girls to your memory? A. In my recollection, various of ages. They could have been from as young as 14, 15 to 18 maybe, 19 . . . very girlish.” *32:8-24; “Q. Once inside the house, what happens next? A. I showed Ghislaine and Jeffrey into the living room, and Ghislaine was the one that instructed the girls, pointing that they needed to come to the living room.” *34:5-10. “Q. What happens next? A. . . . it was getting very perogative [sic], nothing I would want my children to see. The girls were grinding on each other, lifting up their tops, it was very inappropriate.” *37:11-38:6. “Q. What did you see next? A.. . . From what I knew, Jeffrey was with Ghislaine and now I have all these girls acting very inappropriate ….” *38:22-39:7. “Q. When the girls are kissing either Jeff or other girls where was Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Sitting right next to Jeffrey.” *40:24-41:3. “Q. Is there something you remember vividly? A. . . . I did pull the nanny aside and I was really, my wife and I were dumbfounded, profound of the situation, and she mentioned this was an occurrence that had happened before, and they called it the kissing game.” *41:8-17.” - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 16 6 deposition testimony – the almost the exact same number Ms. Giuffre is seeking.6 Defendant cannot credibly oppose Ms. Giuffre’s additional depositions while she, herself, is trying to take more than ten without leave of court.7 It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg, Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam, proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious lies.” II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms. 6 Defendant’s counsel has taken the deposition testimony of (1) Ms. Giuffre; (2) Ms. Giuffre’s mother (Lynn Miller); (3) Ms. Giuffre’s father (Sky Roberts); and (4) Ms. Giuffre’s physician (Dr. Olson). Defendant’s counsel has noticed the following witnesses for deposition: (5) Mr. Austrich; (6) Mr. Figueroa; (7) Ms. Degorgieou; (8) a known victim of Jeffrey Epstein; (9) Mr. Weisfield; (10) Ms. Churcher; (11) Ms. Boylan; and (12) the 30(b)(6) witness for Victims Refuse Silence. 7 Defendant has unilaterally scheduled - without consulting counsel for Ms. Giuffre - at least two of these depositions for days when depositions of Ms. Giuffre’s witnesses have been set. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 16 7 Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.8 That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms. Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner. Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”). Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however, Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were 8 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp. at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 16 8 brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case. In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,9 Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against co￾conspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20- 22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and 9 In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself discussing Ms. Giuffre. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 16 9 drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive factors: (1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party; (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation; (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects. Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial. III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at 2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which depositions she should prioritize. 10 10 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to depose. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 16 10 An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore, that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions. Dated: June 14, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 16 11 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-520211 11 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 16 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-24 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 16 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ____________________________/ CORRECTED1 DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Johanna Sjoberg’s Deposition Transcript excerpts dated May 18, 2016. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Rinaldo Rizzo’s Final Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 10, 2016. 1 On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpts from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough” transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Juan Alessi’s Deposition Transcript excerpts dated June 1, 2016. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: June 14, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52022 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-25 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 10 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS ------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------x May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 10 Page 21 1 Jeffrey's home when you arrived? 2 A. Yes. When I first walked in the door, it 3 was just myself, and Ghislaine headed for the 4 staircase and said -- told me to come up to the 5 living room. 6 Q. And what happened at that point, when you 7 came up to the living room? 8 A. I came up and saw Virginia, Jeffrey, 9 Prince Andrew, Ghislaine in the room. 10 Q. And did you meet Prince Andrew at that 11 time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what happened next? 14 A. At one point, Ghislaine told me to come 15 upstairs, and we went into a closet and pulled out 16 the puppet, the caricature of Prince Andrew, and 17 brought it down. And there was a little tag on the 18 puppet that said "Prince Andrew" on it, and that's 19 when I knew who he was. 20 Q. And did -- what did the puppet look like? 21 A. It looked like him. And she brought it 22 down and presented it to him; and that was a great 23 joke, because apparently it was a production from a 24 show on BBC. And they decided to take a picture 25 with it, in which Virginia and Andrew sat on a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 10 Page 22 1 couch. They put the puppet on Virginia's lap, and I 2 sat on Andrew's lap, and they put the puppet's hand 3 on Virginia's breast, and Andrew put his hand on my 4 breast, and they took a photo. 5 Q. Do you remember who took the photo? 6 A. I don't recall. 7 Q. Did you ever see the photo after it was 8 taken? 9 A. I did not. 10 Q. And Ms. Maxwell was present during the -- 11 was Ms. Maxwell present during that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What happened next? 14 A. The next thing I remember is just being 15 shown to which room I was going to be staying in. 16 Q. When you exited the room that you were in 17 where the picture was taken, do you recall who 18 remained in that room? 19 A. I don't. 20 Q. Do you recall seeing Virginia exit that 21 room? 22 A. I don't. 23 Q. During this trip to New York, did you have 24 to perform any work when you were at the New York 25 house? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 10 Page 141 1 always covered himself with a towel. 2 Q. I believe I asked this, but I just want to 3 clarify to make sure that I did: Did Maxwell ever 4 ask you to bring other girls over to -- for Jeffrey? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Yes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And what did you -- did you do anything in 9 response to that? 10 A. I did bring one girl named Francesca -- 11 no. Florence -- it was some girl named Florencia 12 that I had worked with at a restaurant. And I 13 recall Ghislaine giving me money to bring her over; 14 however, they never called her to come. 15 Q. And then I believe you mentioned that one 16 of your physical fitness instructors, you brought a 17 physical fitness instructor; was that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And what did she do? 20 A. She gave him a -- like a training session, 21 twice. 22 Q. Twice. 23 Did anything sexual in nature happen 24 during the session? 25 A. At one point he lifted up her shirt and MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 10 Page 142 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it 2 down. 3 Q. Anything else? 4 A. That was the conversation that he had told 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the 6 girl by the pool. 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls 9 around? 10 A. She implied that, yes. 11 Q. In what way? 12 A. Sexually. 13 Q. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you 16 also previously stated that during the camera 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not 18 finishing the job. 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 22 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that 24 question. 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 10 Page 143 1 when she said you hadn't finished the job, with 2 respect to the camera? 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 4 THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not 5 brought him to orgasm. 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging 9 Jeffrey? 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: I can answer? 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that 14 is what was expected of me. 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. 20 THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was 21 sleeping on the plane, and they were getting 22 ready to land. And he went and woke her up, 23 and she thought that meant he wanted a blow 24 job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he 25 said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 10 Page 150 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was it in the context of anything? 3 A. About the camera that she had bought for 4 me. 5 Q. What did she say in relationship to the 6 camera that she bought for you and taking 7 photographs of you? 8 A. Just that Jeffrey would like to have some 9 photos of me, and she asked me to take photos of 10 myself. 11 Q. What did you say? 12 A. I don't remember saying no, but I never 13 ended up following through. I think I tried once. 14 Q. This was the pre-selfie era, correct? 15 A. Exactly. 16 Q. I want to go back to this: You testified 17 to two things just now with Sigrid that you said 18 were implied to you. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. The first one was it would take pressure 21 off of Maxwell to have more girls around? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that 24 led you to believe that was her implication? 25 A. She said she doesn't have the time or MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 10 Page 151 1 desire to please him as much as he needs, and that's 2 why there were other girls around. 3 Q. And did she refer specifically to any 4 other girls? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did she talk about underaged girls? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Was she talking about massage therapists? 9 A. Not specifically. 10 Q. Okay. There were other girls in the house 11 that were not massage therapists, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Nadia is another person that was around, 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. There were other people he traveled with? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. 19 BY MS. MENNINGER: 20 Q. Correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Other girls? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Adults? 25 A. Yes. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 10 Page 159 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) 4 5 I, the undersigned authority, certify 6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me 7 and was duly sworn. 8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 9 18th day of May, 2016. 10 11 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 12 Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. FF911443 13 Expires: 2/16/21 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-26 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 10 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED1 CORRECTED2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCEED PRESUMPTIVE TEN DEPOSITION LIMIT Sigrid McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 1 Pursuant to conferral with opposing counsel, Plaintiff has revised the first paragraph of this brief, as well as the second-to-last paragraph of Section I of this brief out of a concern Defendant raised with the use of the term “set” when referring to depositions. In an abundance of caution, to avoid unnecessary disputes and waste of this Court’s time, the undersigned agreed to revise the brief to remove the language in question. The remainder of this brief is unchanged. 2 On June 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed her Reply in Support of her Motion to Exceed the Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit (DE 203). This brief contained excerpt from Rinaldo Rizzo’s “rough” deposition transcript, as the final transcript had not yet been completed by the stenographer. On June 14, 2016, the stenographer issued the “final” deposition transcript, and Ms. Giuffre hereby files the final transcript citations and excerpts to replace the “rough” transcript that accompanied her supporting Declaration (DE 204-2). There are no other changes to this document. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 15 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 15 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. ........ 1 II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. .................. 6 III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. ........................................................................ 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 15 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009) ................................3 Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) ..................................9 LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................8 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) .........................................................................................................................7 Fed. R. Evid. 415(a) .........................................................................................................................7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 15 1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply in support of her Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. The motion should be granted because Ms. Giuffre has shown good cause for needing to exceed the ten deposition limit and in light of recent developments, Ms. Giuffre has streamlined her request, and now seeks only a total of three additional depositions. The Court should grant her motion and allow her to take the three additional depositions. I. THE PROPOSED DEPOSITIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE, AND NONE ARE DUPLICATIVE. Defendant argues that the depositions Ms. Giuffre seeks to take are somehow “duplicative” of each other. Even a quick reading of the Defendant’s pleading makes clear this is untrue. Defendant repeatedly gives her own narrow view of what existing witnesses have said. For example, Defendant argues that Ms. Sjoberg “did not corroborate that [Ms. Giuffre] is telling the truth.” Defendant’s Response at 5. Defendant’s characterization is untrue.3 But, as the mere 3 Defendant wholly mischaracterized Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony as involving “professional massages.” Defendant’s Resp. at 5. In fact, Ms. Sjoberg testified that, when she was a twenty￾one-year-old college student, Defendant (not Jeffrey Epstein) recruited and hired her under the pretext of being a personal assistant to provide sexual massages. As one example of this testimony, Sjoberg testified that Defendant became angry with her for not “finishing your job” when Defendant was the one who ended up having to bring Epstein to orgasm when Ms. Sjoberg did not. See McCawley Dec at Exhibit 1, Sjoberg Dep. Tr. at 142:25-143:14(Q. What did you understand Maxwell to mean when you said that you hadn’t finished the job, with respect to the camera? A. She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A. I can answer? Yes, I took that conversation to mean that it what was expected of me.) Ms. Sjoberg’s testimony also shows that Defendant was a predator of young women and girls, and that her business was to provide girls for Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with. Id. at 141:3-5; 150:16-151:2 (Q. Did Maxwell ever ask you to bring other girls over to – for Jeffrey? A. Yes. Q. I want to go back to this: You testified to two things just now with Sigrid that you said were implied to you. A. Okay. Q. The first one was it would take pressure off of Maxwell to have more girls around? A. Right. Q. What exactly did Maxwell say to you that led you to believe that was her implication? A. She said she doesn’t have the time or desire to please him as much as he needs, and that’s why there were other girls around.). That Ms. Sjoberg never saw Ms. Giuffre give a massage to Ms. Maxwell is immaterial. Ms. Sjoberg was with Defendant and Epstein when Ms. Giuffre was a minor child, and corroborates Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 15 2 fact of this dispute confirms, this case is going to be hotly contested and the weight of the evidence on each side is going to be vitally important. The Court is well aware of many other civil cases where the parties have taken far more than ten depositions by mutual agreement. Defendant’s refusal to agree to a few more depositions here is simply an effort to keep all the relevant facts from being developed. Since Ms. Giuffre filed her initial motion seeking seven additional deposition, she has worked diligently to try to streamline the necessary depositions and has discovered new information concerning witnesses and their knowledge of the claims in this case. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre currently brings before this Court a significantly shorter list4 of witnesses she needs to depose to prove her claim, with some alterations. To be clear, Ms. Giuffre has narrowed her request and is now only seeking an additional three depositions from the Court as follows: For descriptions concerning the depositions already taken (Defendant; Ms. Sjoberg; Mr. Alessi; Mr. Rodgers; and Mr. Rizzo), and those yet to be taken (Mr. Epstein; Mr. Gow; Ms. Kellen; Ms. Marcinkova; Mr. Recarey; and Mr. Brunel), Ms. Giuffre references and incorporates her descriptions in the moving brief. The only remaining witness is William Jefferson Clinton. His deposition is necessary for the following reason: x In a 2011 interview, Ms. Giuffre mentioned former President Bill Clinton’s close personal relationship with Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. While Ms. Giuffre made no allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton, Ms. Maxwell in her deposition raised Ms. Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the “obvious lies” to which she was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit. Apart from the Ms. Giuffre’s accounts concerning her being trafficked to Prince Andrew. Id. at 21-22. Ms. Giuffre refers the Court to Ms. Sjoberg’s deposition testimony in its entirety (DE 173-5). It is depositions like this - verifying Ms. Giuffre’s account of being recruited by Defendant for sex with Epstein – that Defendant is trying avoid. However, multiple other witnesses have testimony that supports Ms. Giuffre’s claims, in different and various ways, and Ms. Giuffre needs that testimony to prove her defamation claim against Defendant. 4 Ms. Giuffre is no longer seeking the deposition testimony of Emmy Taylor, Jo Jo Fontanella, and Michael Reiter. Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 15 3 Defendant and Mr. Epstein, former President Clinton is a key person who can provide information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove Ms. Maxwell’s claims. Ms. Giuffre is still working diligently with opposing counsel, these witnesses, and their attorneys on scheduling, as well as identifying other witnesses who may have factual information about the case. But, at this time, she seeks this Court’s approval for an additional three depositions – depositions that will not consume the full seven hours presumptively allotted. All three prongs of the three-factor test to evaluate a motion for additional depositions strongly support granting the motion. Atkinson v. Goord, No. 01 CIV. 0761 LAKHBP, 2009 WL 890682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2009). First, as reviewed in detail on a witness-by-witness basis above, the discovery sought is not duplicative. The proposed deponents include the individual who assisted in making the defamatory statement, women Defendant Maxwell hired to recruit girls for Jeffrey Epstein, an individual with intimate knowledge of Defendant and Epstein’s sexual trafficking ring, other victims of Jeffrey Epstein (including a then underage victim), Mr. Epstein himself, and other witnesses who can corroborate important pieces of Ms. Giuffre’s statements or refute Ms. Maxwell’s statements and positions. These witnesses’ testimony will corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s account of Defendant being a recruiter of females for Epstein and corroborate the type of abuse she and others suffered. Sadly, Ms. Giuffre is far from the only one of Defendant’s victims, and there are other witnesses whose testimony is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s claims and the falsity of the statements made by Defendant. Second, if Ms. Giuffre is denied these depositions, she will not have had the opportunity to obtain the information by other discovery in this case. The Court will recall from Ms. Giuffre’s opening motion that Defendant’s surprising lack of memory has, in no small part, - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 15 4 caused the need for additional depositions. See Motion at 5-8 (listing 59 examples of memory lapses during Ms. Maxwell deposition, including inability to remember events recorded on aircraft flight logs or a photograph). Defendant offers no explanation for her convenient forgetfulness. Moreover, evidence of being recruited by Defendant and being sexually assaulted is not something Ms. Giuffre can obtain through requests for production or through interrogatories. The only way of obtaining such evidence is from witness testimony by those who were victimized, those who assisted Defendant in recruiting and abuse, and those who observed the recruiting or the abuse. For example, Rinaldo Rizzo, an estate manager for a friend of Defendant and Epstein’s, testified about an episode where Defendant had threatened a terrified 15 year old girl and confiscated her passport to try to make her have sex with Epstein on his private island: See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo Deposition 5 Mr. Rizzo testified about another episode where Defendant gave instructions to, and presided over, a group of eleven girls as young as 14 years old playing a “kissing game” with and for Jeffrey Epstein.6 Finally, the 5 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. *52:6-7; *55:23-57:23. “Q. How old was this girl? A. 15 years old.” “What did she say? A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that, and this is not – this is blurting out, not a conversation like I’m having a casual conversation, that quickly I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said they asked me for sex, I said no. . . . And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and phone and gave it to Ghislaine Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened. And I said threatened? She says yes, I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this. . . And she said that before she got there, she was threatened again by Jeffrey and Ghislaine not to talk about what I had mentioned earlier, about – again, the word she used was sex. Q. And during this time that you’re saying she is rambling, is her demeanor continues to be what you described it? A. Yes. Q. Was she in fear? A. Yes”. 6 See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Rizzo *Final Dep. Tr. “Q. So in the house, tell me if I am wrong, you have Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and approximately 11 girls? A. Yes, somewhere between 11 and 12. Q. Can you describe the 11 to 12 girls to your memory? A. In my recollection, various of ages. They could have been from as young as 14, 15 to 18 maybe, 19 . . . very girlish.” *32:8-24; “Q. Once inside the house, what happens next? A. I showed Ghislaine and Jeffrey into the living room, and Ghislaine was the one that instructed the girls, pointing that they needed to come to the living room.” *34:5-10. “Q. What happens next? A. . . . it was getting - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 15 5 Defendant appears to be concealing critical evidence of the sexual abuse that other witnesses have testified she possesses. Yet Defendant has failed to produce a single photo in this case. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3, Alessi Deposition at 36-41. Document discovery and interrogatories are not helpful in obtaining this type of evidence: depositions are needed. Third, the burden and expense of this proposed discovery is limited to three additional depositions. Defendant in this case is a multi-millionaire with able counsel. Three depositions will not cause her undue burden, expense, or inconvenience. These depositions are important to resolving issues in this case. Given that very few witnesses reside within 100 miles of the courthouse and therefore cannot be compelled to trial, this request for only three additional depositions is a reasonable request. It is plain why Defendant does not want these depositions to go forward. Ms. Sjoberg, Mr. Alessi, and Mr. Rizzo’s testimony was harmful to Defendant’s case, and the additional depositions will provide further evidence that Defendant acted as Jeffrey Epstein’s madam, proving the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant proclaimed publically as “obvious lies.” II. MS. GIUFFRE IS SEEKING HIGHLY RELEVANT TRIAL TESTIMONY. All of the people Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose have discoverable and important information regarding the elements of Ms. Giuffre’s claims. Ms. Giuffre stated that Defendant very perogative [sic], nothing I would want my children to see. The girls were grinding on each other, lifting up their tops, it was very inappropriate.” *37:11-38:6. “Q. What did you see next? A.. . . From what I knew, Jeffrey was with Ghislaine and now I have all these girls acting very inappropriate ….” *38:22-39:7. “Q. When the girls are kissing either Jeff or other girls where was Ghislaine Maxwell? A. Sitting right next to Jeffrey.” *40:24-41:3. “Q. Is there something you remember vividly? A. . . . I did pull the nanny aside and I was really, my wife and I were dumbfounded, profound of the situation, and she mentioned this was an occurrence that had happened before, and they called it the kissing game.” *41:8-17.” 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 15 6 recruited her and other young females for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. The people she now seeks to depose are all witnesses who can testify to Defendant working essentially as a madam for Jeffrey Epstein, recruiting young females for Epstein, or corroborate other important aspects of her statements. The fact that Defendant recruited girls, some of which were underage, for Epstein makes Ms. Giuffre’s claim that she was also recruited by Defendant to ultimately have sex with Epstein and others more credible – and that Defendant’s denials of any involvement in such recruiting is a bald-faced lie. Witnesses will testify that Defendant’s recruitment and management of the girls for Jeffrey Epstein was a major aspect of Defendant’s job, and that Ms. Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse and Defendant’s involvement accords perfectly with other witnesses’ accounts of what Defendant’s job was for Epstein.7 That other young females were similarly recruited by the Defendant is evidence that Ms. Giuffre is telling the truth about her experiences – and thus direct evidence that Defendant defamed her when calling her a liar. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre can establish that Defendant’s modus operandi was to recruit young females for Epstein, that helps corroborate Ms. Giuffre’s own testimony that Defendant recruited her for the same purposes and in the same manner. Although the Court need not make a final ruling on this evidentiary issue now, Rule 404(b) itself makes such testimony admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (other act “evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”). Indeed, even more specifically than the general provisions of Rule 404(b), Rule 415 makes these other acts admissible, due to 7 Defendant’s specious suggestion that Ms. Giuffre heard about the other girls whom she recruited for sexual purposes and then decided to “hop on the band wagon” (Defendant’s Resp. at 8 n.7) tacitly admits that Defendant procured a “band wagon” of girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse. Moreover, Defendant cannot refute the documentary evidence that she was on Epstein private jet with Ms. Giuffre over 20 times while Ms. Giuffre was a minor – flights that Defendant is, quite conveniently, now unable to recall. Motion at 5-8. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 15 7 the fact that those involved in sexual abuse of minors have a strong propensity for repeating those crimes. See Fed. R. Evid. 415(a)( (“In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.”). Entirely apart from corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own individual abuse, however, Defendant fails to recognize that in calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”, she was attacking all aspects of Ms. Giuffre’s account – including Ms. Giuffre’s statements that Defendant served generally as a recruiter of girls for Epstein and that Epstein sexually abused the underage girls that were brought to him. Thus, in this defamation case, the testimony of these witnesses are admissible not only to bolster Ms. Giuffre’s testimony about her individual abuse, but because they are simply part of the body of statements whose truth or falsity is at issue in this case. In addition, one of the witnesses that Ms. Giuffre seeks to depose is registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who stands at the center of the case. Indeed, some of the most critical events took place in the presence of just three people: Ms. Giuffre, defendant Maxwell, and Epstein. If Epstein were to tell the truth, his testimony would fully confirm Ms. Giuffre’s account of her sexual abuse. Epstein, however, may well attempt to support Defendant by invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about his sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre. Apparently privy to her former boyfriend Epstein’s anticipated plans in this regard,8 Defendant makes the claim that it would be a “convoluted argument” to allow Ms. Giuffre to use those invocations against her. Defendant’s Resp. at 3. Tellingly, Defendant’s response brief cites no authority to refute that proposition that adverse inference can be drawn against co￾conspirators. Presumably this is because, as recounted in Ms. Giuffre’s opening brief (at pp. 20- 8 In discovery, Defendant Maxwell has produced several emails between Epstein and herself discussing Ms. Giuffre. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 15 8 22), the Second Circuit’s seminal decision of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), squarely upheld the drawing of adverse inferences based on a non-party’s invocation of a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Second Circuit instructed that, the circumstances of given case, rather than status of particular nonparty witness, determines whether nonparty witness' invocation of privilege against self-incrimination is admissible in course of civil litigation. Id. at122-23. The Second Circuit also held that, in determining whether nonparty witness’ invocation of privilege against self-incrimination in course of civil litigation and drawing of adverse inferences is admissible, court may consider the following nonexclusive factors: (1) nature of witness’ relationship with and loyalty to party; (2) degree of control which party has vested in witness in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation; (3) whether witness is pragmatically noncaptioned party in interest and whether assertion of privilege advances interests of witness and party in outcome of litigation; and (4) whether witness was key figure in litigation and played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects. Id. at 124-25. Ms. Giuffre will be able to establish that all these factors tip decisively in favor of allowing an adverse inference. Accordingly, her efforts to depose Epstein, Marcinkova, and Kellen seek important information that will be admissible at trial. III. MS. GIUFFRE’S REQUEST IS TIMELY. Defendant also argues that this motion is somehow “premature.” Defendant’s Resp. at 2-3. Clearly, if Ms. Giuffre had waited to file her motion until later, Defendant would have argued until the matter came too late. The motion is proper at this time because, as of the date of this filing, fact discovery closes in 17 days (although Ms. Giuffre has recently filed a motion for a 30-day extension of the deadline). In order to give the Court the opportunity to rule as far in advance as possible – thereby permitting counsel for both side to schedule the remaining depositions – Ms. Giuffre brings the motion now. She also requires a ruling in advance so that Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 15 9 she can make final plans about how many depositions she has available and thus which depositions she should prioritize. 9 An additional reason this motion is appropriate now is that, despite Ms. Giuffre’s diligent pursuit of depositions, many witnesses have cancelled their dates, failed to appear, or wrongfully evaded service. These maneuvers have frustrated Ms. Giuffre’s ability to take their depositions in a logical and sequential fashion, complicating the planning of a deposition schedule. For example, on April 11, 2016, Ms. Giuffre served notice on Defendant’s counsel for the deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo, setting it for May 13, 2016. Nearly a month later, just a few days before that properly noticed deposition, Defendant’s counsel requested that it be rescheduled, and, therefore, that deposition did not take place until June 10, 2016. Additionally, three other important witnesses evaded Ms. Giuffre’s repeated efforts to serve them. It took Ms. Giuffre’s motion for alternative service (DE 160) to convince Jeffrey Epstein to allow his attorney to accept service of process. The Court also has before it Ms. Giuffre’s motion to serve Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova by alternative service. These witnesses’ evasion of service delayed the taking of their depositions, and, as of the date of this filing, none have been deposed yet. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, Ms. Giuffre should be allowed to take three more depositions than the presumptive ten deposition limit – a total of thirteen depositions. Dated: June 14, 2016. 9 Defendant tries to find support for her prematurity argument in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:06-CV-232 (CFD), 2006 WL 1525970, at *2 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006). However, in that case, the Court found a motion for additional depositions to be premature, in part, because “[d]iscovery has not even commenced” . . . and the moving party “ha[d] not listed with specificity those individuals it wishes to depose.” Of course, neither of these points applies in this case at hand: the parties are approaching the close of fact discovery, and Ms. Giuffre has provided detailed information about each individual she has deposed already and still seeks to depose. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 15 10 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-520210 10 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 15 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-27 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE DEPOSITIONS AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 45 ......................................... Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 32 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................... 5 I. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF DILIGENCE ................................................................................. 6 A. President Bill Clinton ........................................................................................................... 6 B. Ross Gow ............................................................................................................................. 9 C. Jean Luc Brunel ................................................................................................................. 10 D. Jeffrey Epstein ................................................................................................................... 12 E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen ................................................................................. 14 II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL ...................................................................... 15 III. PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH EXTRA TIME ........................................................................................................ 18 1. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Revolving Door ............................................................................... 18 2. Plaintiff’s Recurrent Rule 45 Violations ........................................................................ 19 IV. MS. MAXWELL’S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY ................ 20 V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO TAKE RE-DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND TO DEPOSE SHARON CHURCHER EXISTS ........................................................................................ 23 VI. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL OTHER DEADLINES NEED TO BE EXTENDED ............... 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 26 ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 32 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Va. 2012) ............................................ 6 Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03–CV–5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). ..................................................... 5 Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) ................................. 6 LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997) .......................................................... 16 Murphy v. Board of Educ., 196 F.R.D. 220, 222 (W.D.N.Y.2000) .............................................. 19 Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) ........................................................................................................... 5 Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) ............. 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 32 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Combined Response (“Response”) in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to Complete Depositions (“Motion”) and Motion for Sanctions For Violation of Rule 45, and states as follows: INTRODUCTION Apparently, Plaintiff seeks to take six (6) depositions beyond the scheduling order deadline of July 1, yet has failed to demonstrate good cause or diligence as to any.1 The witnesses include (1) President Bill Clinton, a witness that Plaintiff initiated informal attempts to depose on June 9, and (2) Ross Gow, who Plaintiff began steps to depose under the Hague Convention in London last Friday, June 17. Plaintiff also seeks to untimely depose (3) Jean Luc Brunel, a witness she had noticed for a mid-June deposition, who apparently did not appear on that date with agreement and consent of Plaintiff’s counsel. The remaining three witnesses Plaintiff seeks to untimely depose are ones who repeatedly have expressed their intention to take the Fifth Amendment as to all questions posed. Counsel for (4) Jeffrey Epstein, offered to accept service on or about April 11 but Plaintiff ignored that offer for more than six weeks. Plaintiff only began on June 12 any attempt to schedule that deposition in the Virgin Islands. Last week, Mr. Epstein’s counsel filed a Motion to Quash his deposition subpoena. The final untimely depositions sought by Plaintiff are for witnesses (5) Sarah Kellen and (6) Nadia Marcincova, about whom Plaintiff has made no public claims and thus, have no testimony relevant to this defamation action concerning whether Plaintiff’s public 1 In her Amended Corrected Reply In Support of Motion to Exceed Ten Depositions, Plaintiff represents that she only seeks to take three depositions beyond the limit of ten and that she no longer seeks depositions of witnesses Emmy Taylor, Dana Burns, JoJo Fontanilla, and Michael Reiter. (Doc. #224 at 2 n.4) She does not state her intentions with respect to other witnesses, like Maria Alessi, that she noticed but never deposed. However, comparing that Reply with her other motions, counsel has deduced the remaining witnesses from whom Plaintiff apparently seeks to secure deposition testimony in July. Plaintiff has already taken 6 depositions and another scheduled tomorrow. Thus by the close of discovery she will have taken 7 of her allotted 10 depositions. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 32 2 allegations about Ghislaine Maxwell are – or rather are not – true. The attempted service of subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova all violated Rule 45(a)(4) and should be sanctioned by this Court. As to all of these witnesses, Plaintiff has fallen far short of the “good cause” required by Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the Scheduling Order. In fact, for the most part, her failures to actively pursue depositions with these witnesses qualifies as in-excusable neglect: She frittered away seven of the eight months of the discovery period and now has placed Ms. Maxwell, this Court, and the witnesses in the untenable position of trying to accommodate her last-minute scramble. In the absence of any acceptable excuses, and for the limited evidentiary value that most of the requested witnesses can provide, this Court should deny the request for the extra time to take these six depositions. The only witnesses for whom depositions should be permitted following the discovery cut-off are: (1) Ms. Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff’s friend, advocate and former journalist with the Daily Mail, who filed a Motion to Quash her subpoena on the day before her scheduled deposition,2 and (2) Plaintiff, who refused to answer questions at her deposition concerning highly relevant, non-privileged information.3 Alternatively, if the Court is to grant additional time for Plaintiff to take depositions, Ms. Maxwell will be unduly prejudiced without sufficient additional time to (a) secure any witnesses to rebut testimony gleaned from these witnesses, (b) conduct discovery of Plaintiff’s retained experts, (c) submit a summary judgment motion which includes facts learned from these late depositions, and (d) prepare for trial. Thus, if the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, the remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order ought to be extended accordingly. 2 Ms. Churcher’s motion to quash will be heard this Thursday by the Court. 3 Ms. Maxwell is filing simultaneously with this Response a Motion to Re-Open Plaintiff’s Deposition. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 32 3 BACKGROUND To divert attention away from her own lack of diligence, Plaintiff characteristically devotes much of her Motion blaming Ms. Maxwell and her counsel for her own problems with depositions. Not only is Plaintiff’s account factually inaccurate, none of it matters to whether she could timely complete the six depositions at issue. For example, the scheduling of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition (which depended, among other things, on an historic snowstorm, a disputed protective order, Plaintiff’s failure to timely produce documents, and counsel’s conflicting calendars, all of which have been amply documented with this Court)4 does not inform any analysis regarding Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing depositions of these six witnesses. See Rule 26d)(3) (“Unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interests of justice: (A) methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and (B) discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.”). Likewise, receipt of Ms. Maxwell’s Rule 26 disclosures in February also had nothing to do with these witnesses. Id. Notably, each of the witnesses who Plaintiff now seeks to depose were known to her from the outset; all but President Clinton were included in her initial Rule 26 disclosures served on November 11, 2015 and two of the six were specifically mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Finally, the fact that witness Rinaldo Rizzo had a deposition re-scheduled from April until June does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. Mr. Rizzo was deposed on June 14 and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mr. Rizzo, in fact, was practically gleeful to be a witness: he was the one who initiated contact with Brad Edwards after reading about the lawsuit, asked to be a witness in this case, hopes to make money from this 4 Doc. #62 & Tr. of Hearing of Mar. 24 at 4. - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 32 4 case, already has sued Glenn Dubin, Epstein’s friend, had counsel who was totally cooperative in the rescheduling and reported fanciful and never-before heard claims about Ms. Maxwell, the Dubins and others that he has never reported to any law enforcement even though he claims that he witnessed potential kidnappings and sexual assaults on children.5 Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. Rizzo is an “example of delay that has harmed [her] ability to obtain all depositions in a timely manner” (Mot. at 3) is specious. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, discovery began in this case on October 23, 2015, following the parties’ Rule 26(f) conferral. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). At the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference on October 28, 2015, this Court directed the parties to complete all fact discovery by July 1, 2016. (Doc. #13) On November 30, 2015, contemporaneous with the filing of her Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Maxwell also requested of this Court a stay of discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Doc. #17) That motion was denied on January 20, 2016, with an additional two-week period granted to respond to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents.6 The discovery was thus never stayed. Plaintiff erroneously asserts that that discovery “did not commence in this matter until” February 8. What she means is that she neglected to seek any non-witness depositions until then; nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Orders, or the law prevented Plaintiff from doing so at any point after October 23, 2015.7 Plaintiff has had over eight months to subpoena 5 See, Menninger Declaration, Ex. A (Rizzo deposition transcript excerpts). Of course, Plaintiff’s counsel has engaged in their own last-minute “unavailability” for a deposition scheduled by Ms. Maxwell, as to Plaintiff’s former fiancé, a witness who is hostile, required numerous service attempts at great cost and inconvenience, and who then (because of Plaintiff’s last minute unavailability) had to be re-served by a process server who swam through a swamp to get to his home, at additional cost and inconvenience. 6 By agreement of the parties, the time to respond was extended an additional six days because defense counsel was in a jury trial at the time the Court’s Order was handed down. 7 See, e.g., Pltf’s Opp’n to Mot. to Stay (Doc. #20) at 17 n.8 (“As of the date of this filing, zero (0) disposition [sic] notices have been propounded on the Defendant.”). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 32 5 witnesses, schedule depositions and conduct them. Instead, she waited until the last minute and now complains of lack of time. Any lack of time is a product of her own bad faith and negligent litigation tactics and should not be sanctioned by this Court. The failure to timely secure the depositions of the remaining six witnesses is through no fault of Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. As to these witnesses, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have played no role in hindering Plaintiff’s ability to depose the witnesses; in fact, as to four of the six Plaintiff attempted to serve subpoenas on the witnesses before ever providing notice to the defense, in clear violation of Rule 45(a)(4). LEGAL AUTHORITY Rule 16(b) permits modification of a scheduling order only upon a showing of “good cause.” To satisfy the good cause standard “the party must show that, despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.” Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMD Munai, Inc., 05 Civ. 3749 (KMW)(DF), 2009 WL 2524611 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Rent-A-Center Inc. v. 47 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp., 215 F.R.D. 100, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (McMahon, J.)); accord Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000) (“ ‘[G]ood cause’ depends on the diligence of the moving party.”); Perfect Pearl Co., Inc. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 453, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Engelmeyer, J.) (“To show good cause, a movant must demonstrate that it has been diligent, meaning that, despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met.”). Good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party in seeking to meet the scheduling order. Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003). The Oxford Dictionary defines “diligence” as “careful and persistent work or effort.” See “diligence” at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/diligence (last accessed on Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 32 6 June 18, 2016). “Good cause” and diligence were not shown when a party raised the prospect of a deposition nine days prior to the discovery deadline. Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist., 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011); compare Reese v. Virginia Intern. Terminals, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 282 (E.D. Va. 2012) (depositions noticed very early in discovery period and movant engaged in continuing meet-and-confer dialogue with defendants throughout five month discovery period); Iantosca v. Benistar Admin. Svcs., Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 79 (D. Mass. 2011) (correspondence indicated that the plaintiffs had tried on numerous occasions to schedule the depositions and to extend the discovery schedule but that the defendants had either refused or failed to respond, good cause found). ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF DILIGENCE Plaintiff has demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence in securing the remaining six depositions that she seeks. A. President Bill Clinton Plaintiff’s Motion failed to mention any desire to take the deposition of former President Clinton. No Notice of Deposition has been served and no scheduling of his deposition has commenced. Indeed, President Clinton first appeared on Plaintiff’s Third Revised Rule 26 Disclosures two weeks ago on June 1. Then, last week, in her Reply In Support of Motion to Exceed Ten Depositions filed on June 13 (“Reply”), Plaintiff averred that President Clinton’s deposition is “necessary” because Ms. Maxwell “in her deposition [on April 25] raised Ms. Giuffre’s comments about President Clinton as one of the ‘obvious lies’ to which she was referring in her public statement that formed the basis of this suit.” Reply at 3. This is utter nonsense and nothing more than a transparent ploy by Plaintiff to increase media exposure for her sensational stories through deposition side-show. This witness has nothing relevant to add - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 32 7 to this case and Plaintiff has made no effort, much less one in good faith to timely secure his testimony. Plaintiff admits she has “made not allegations of illegal actions by Bill Clinton.” Id. But Plaintiff has asserted that she spent time with President Clinton on the island of Little St. James, US Virgin Islands and that she flew there with the President in a helicopter piloted by Ms. Maxwell. In one article, authored by Sharon Churcher, Plaintiff related: “On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr. Clinton shortly after he left office. But as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait. ‘I’d have been about 17 at the time,’ she says. ‘I flew to the Caribbean with Jeffrey and then Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey bought her. She’d always wanted to fly and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons, and I remember she was very excited because she got her license around the first year we met. I used to get frightened flying with her but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I remember him talking about what a good job she did. I only met Bill twice but Jeffrey told me they were good friends.’ ‘We all dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the head of the table. Bill was at his left. I sat across from him. Emmy Taylor, Ghislaine’s blonde British assistant, sat at my right. Ghislaine was at Bill’s left and at the left of Ghislaine there were two olive-skinned brunettes who’d flown in with us from New York. I’d never met them before. I’d say they were no older than 17, very innocent-looking. They weren’t there for me. They weren’t there for Jeffrey or Ghislaine because I was there to have sex with Jeffrey on the trip. Maybe Jeffrey thought they would entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey and Ghislaine seemed to have a very good relationship. Bill was very funny. He made me laugh a few times. And he and Jeffrey and Ghislaine told blokey jokes and the brunettes listened politely and giggled. After dinner I gave Jeffrey an erotic massage. I don’t remember seeing Bill again on the trip but I assume Ghislaine flew him back.” See Sharon Churcher, “Teenage girl recruited by peadophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton,” DAILY MAIL (Mar. 5, 2011) (attached to Declaration of Sharon Churcher, Ex. 3 (Doc. #216-3). Similarly, in Plaintiff’s unpublished and un-dated book manuscript, The Billionaire Playboys’ Club, she writes: “The next big dinner party on the island had another significant guest appearance being the one and only, Bill Clinton. He is the only president in the world to be - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 32 8 dismissed from his role as a world leader because he was caught with his trousers around his ankles and had the stain to prove it. Publicly humiliating his wife and himself he retired from his title but not from his lifestyle. This wasn't a big party as such, only a few of us eating at the diner table. There was Jeffrey at the head of it all, as always. On the left side was Emmy, Ghislaine and I sitting across the table from us was Bill with two lovely girls who were visiting from New York. Bill's wife, Hillary's absence from the night made it easy for his apparent provocative cheeky side to come out. Teasing the girls on either side of him with playful pokes and brassy comments, there was no modesty between any of them. We all finished our meals and scattered in our own different directions.” Menninger Decl. Ex. B at 110. Each and every part of Plaintiff’s claims regarding President Clinton has conclusively been proven false. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh submitted a report wherein he concluded that President Clinton “did not, in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2003.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C. Further, if any Secret Service agents had accompanied Clinton to that location, “they would have been required to make and file shift logs, travel vouchers, and related documentation relating to the visit,” and there was a “total absence” of any such documentation. Id. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling Churcher that she ever witnessed Ms. Maxwell flying President Clinton or his Secret Service anywhere, or joking with Clinton about “what a good job she did.” Menninger Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff’s counsel remarkably instructed Plaintiff not to answer any additional questions about the other things Sharon Churcher inaccurately reported. Id. Lending even more incredulity to Plaintiff’s story, Ms. Maxwell only received her pilot’s license in mid-1999 casting insurmountable doubt that a recently retired president and his staff would be permitted to fly with her at the helm. With the record thus, Plaintiff’s claims about Clinton’s presence on the Island and the fully concocted story about the dinner party that occurred thereon totally debunked by the former head of the FBI and with Plaintiff now disclaiming she ever witnessed the Secret Service or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 32 9 President Clinton being flown in a helicopter by Ghislaine Maxwell, the relevance of any testimony he might add (i.e., confirm that he was, as Louis Freeh determined, never on the Island) is non-existent. The only purpose for seeking this deposition is for the calculated media strategy that Plaintiff and her publicity-seeking attorneys have devised. Plaintiff failed to disclose President Clinton as a witness until June 1, failed to notice his deposition, failed to diligently pursue a subpoena on him and he has no relevant testimony to offer. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s leave to modify the scheduling order to permit his deposition should be denied. B. Ross Gow As the Court likely recalls, Ross Gow actually issued the statement pertinent to this defamation suit. Plaintiff has known about Ross Gow and his role in this lawsuit since the outset: She referenced him repeatedly by name in the Complaint filed on September 21, 2015. See, e.g., Complaint paragraph 29 (“As part of Maxwell’s campaign, she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to attack Giuffre’s honesty and truthfulness and to accuse Giuffre of lying.”). Plaintiff also has been well aware throughout that Mr. Gow resides in London. See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Improper Privileges, at 8 (Doc. #33). After filing that Complaint in September and litigating the Motion to Compel based on privileges related to Mr. Gow in March, Plaintiff took exactly zero steps to depose Mr. Gow until she filed this Motion. Now, nine months after filing her Complaint, Plaintiff contends there is “not sufficient time” for her to “go through the Hague Convention for service on Mr. Gow” so as to “complete this process before the June 30, 2016 deadline.” Mot. at 4. Indeed, Plaintiff only initiated that process three days ago, on Friday, June 17, two weeks shy of the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff, once again, tries to blame Ms. Maxwell for her own lack of diligence by misrepresenting to this Court that “Ms. Giuffre asked that Defendant produce her agent, Mr. 1111 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 32 10 Gow, for a deposition but Defendant has refused…despite acknowledging that Defendant plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial.” Id. In truth, Plaintiff sent a letter on May 23 which read in its entirety, “This letter is to seek your agreement to produce Ross Gow for deposition, as the agent for your client, Ms. Maxwell. We can work with Mr. Gow’s schedule to minimize inconvenience. Please advise by Wednesday, May 25, 2016, whether you will produce Mr. Gow or whether we will need to seek relief from the Court with respect to his deposition.” Menninger Decl. Ex. E. That was the first communication regarding any deposition of Mr. Gow. Two days later, defense counsel requested any “legal authority that would allow Ms. Maxwell to ‘produce’ Ross Gow for a deposition” or “any rule or case that would either enable or require her to do so.” Id. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not explained when or how Ms. Maxwell “acknowledged” her “plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial,” nor why that is relevant to whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her own failure to take steps to depose a foreign witness deposition until June 17, for a witness she was aware before even filing the Complaint. During the hearing on March 24, this Court stated that it would consider expect to see “good faith showing” of efforts to comply with the schedule and “an inability because of Hague Convention problems,” before it would consider changing the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell submits that waiting until June 17, two weeks before the end of discovery, to even begin the Hague Convention process falls far short of any such good faith showing and the request for leave to take Mr. Gow’s testimony beyond July 1 should be denied. C. Jean Luc Brunel With regard to Jean Luc Brunel, Plaintiff simply asserts that he was “subpoenaed,” and “set for mid-June deposition[],” but “through counsel” has “requested we change the dates of [his] deposition.” Mot. at 4. That is her entire argument. She omits key facts that would, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 32 11 instead, demonstrate her lack of diligence in securing Mr. Brunel’s testimony and also show that she has waived any right to seek an out-of-time deposition. Plaintiff first issued a Notice of a Rule 45 subpoena for documents from Mr. Brunel on February 16, at an address “c/o” attorney, Joe Titone. No documents were ever produced pursuant to that subpoena. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Then, on May 23, 2016, Plaintiff issued a new “Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum,” attached to which was actually a subpoena for deposition testimony to occur on June 8, at 9:00 a.m. in New York. Id. Again, the subpoena was addressed “c/o” attorney Robert Hantman. Then, on June 2, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email that they had received “an email yesterday from Mr. Brunel's attorney saying he needs to reschedule. I believe he is trying to get us new dates today or tomorrow.” Id. The “scheduled date” of June 8 came and went without any indication of any new dates provided by Mr. Brunel’s counsel. The following week, Plaintiff’s counsel stated in a phone conversation that Mr. Brunel’s counsel said his client had gone to France and it was unclear when he would be returning to the United States. Following the filing of the instant motion, counsel for Ms. Maxwell requested copies of the certificates of service for all of Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoenas in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel provided certificates on June 14. Notably absent was any certificate of service for Mr. Brunel. Thus, either Mr. Brunel was never served, or he was served and Plaintiff unilaterally extended his compliance date to an unscheduled time in the future. Either way, the time to complain about a witness’s non-compliance is at or near the time it occurs. Failure to timely complain regarding non-compliance with a subpoena constitutes a waiver. In any event, whether served or not, Mr. Brunel apparently promised to provide new dates before his deposition date came and went, did not do so, has left the country and not indicated a present intention to return. Given Plaintiff’s Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 32 12 role in failing to compel him to attend a deposition, no “good cause” has been demonstrated to take the deposition of Mr. Brunel after July 1. D. Jeffrey Epstein As with the other witnesses, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “good cause” for seeking to depose Jeffrey Epstein out of time. Plaintiff claims that she was unable to secure service on Mr. Epstein until May 27, 2016, because his counsel “refused to accept service” until she filed her motion for alternative service. The documents reflect the opposite: Mr. Epstein’s attorney agreed to accept service on April 11, 2016, and it was only on May 27, 2016, that Plaintiff agreed. See Poe Declaration in Support of Motion to Quash Epstein Deposition, Ex. 3 (Doc. # 223-3). Plaintiff fails to explain her strategic decision, or negligence, in failing to respond for over six weeks to Mr. Weinberg’s email offering to accept service. Indeed, in another failure of candor, Plaintiff’s counsel also neglected to tell this Court about the email offer from Mr. Weinberg either in the instant motion or in her motion to serve Mr. Epstein by alternate means. Mot. at 2; Doc. # 160.8 Plaintiff apparently now claims that she never received that email from Martin Weinberg. All of the preceding communications, however, indicate that Mr. Weinberg promptly responded to Ms. McCawley’s inquiries. See, e.g., Poe Declaration, Ex. 2 (email of April 6 from Weinberg to McCawley (offering to let her know regarding acceptance of service on April 7)); email of McCawley in response (“That works fine – thank you.”)). Thus, if Ms. McCawley received no follow up response from Mr. Weinberg, as she now claims, when he had been corresponding 8 In another glaring omission from Plaintiff’s submissions to the Court on the topic of the service of Mr. Epstein, Plaintiff’s own counsel have strenuously litigated in other cases that Mr. Epstein is a resident of Florida, over his objection that he is a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands. See, e.g., Menninger Decl., Ex. G (Motion to Quash Subpoena on Jeffrey Epstein, Broward County, Florida, 15-000072). Yet, all of Plaintiff’s purported attempts at service on Mr. Epstein were in New York. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 32 13 with her previously theretofore, she had a duty to follow up on that inquiry. A failure to do so is plain vanilla neglect. Even after agreeing to the terms proposed by Epstein’s counsel on May 27, that is, location of the deposition in the U.S. Virgin Islands and subject to right to oppose the subpoena, Plaintiff then waited an additional three weeks until June 12, to even attempt to schedule Epstein’s deposition. Epstein Memorandum in Support of Mot. to Quash at 2 (Doc. # 222). Agreeing to take a deposition in the Virgin Islands on May 27, then waiting until June 12, to try to schedule a date for that deposition, when numerous other depositions had already been scheduled in New York, Florida, and California for the balance of June, is either neglect or strategic posturing by Plaintiff. Either way, it does not amount to “good cause” for such a deposition to take place beyond July 1. Finally, Plaintiff suggests, without factual foundation, that Ms. Maxwell played some role in Mr. Epstein’s counsel’s refusal to accept service. See Mot. at 2 (“forced to personally serve the Defendant’s former boyfriend, employer, and co-conspirator”). As the timeline and documents now reveal, however, Plaintiff failed to provide notice to Ms. Maxwell that she was attempting to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Epstein for more than 7 weeks! Id. Plaintiff states that she began her service attempts on March 7, 2016. The very first Notice of Subpoena and Deposition served on Ms. Maxwell, however, is dated April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. H. Thus, between March 7 and April 27, Ms. McCawley engaged in repeated attempts to serve Mr. Epstein a Rule 45 subpoena (including a request for documents) without providing the proper notice to the parties pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4) (“If the subpoena commands the production of documents… , then before it is served on the person to whom it is directed, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party.”) (emphasis added). As detailed below, this was Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 32 14 not an isolated incident and merits sanction. In any event, it is difficult to imagine how it is Ms. Maxwell’s fault that Plaintiff could not serve Mr. Epstein when she was never put on notice of any attempt to do so. Given that Plaintiff knew as of April 11 the conditions pursuant to which Mr. Epstein would accept service through counsel, yet waited until May 27 to agree to those terms, and then waited another nearly three weeks to attempt to schedule Mr. Epstein’s deposition on a date available for his counsel and Ms. Maxwell’s counsel, Plaintiff has fallen far short of demonstrating “good cause” for taking Mr. Epstein’s deposition beyond the end of the fact discovery cut-off. E. Nadia Marcincova and Sarah Kellen Finally, Plaintiff seeks the depositions of two other witnesses – Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcincova -- who, she complains, “despite being represented by counsel, have refused to accept service.”9 Mot. at 3. Plaintiff claims that her process servers tried for three weeks (from April 25 until May 18) to personally serve Ms. Kellen and Ms. Marcincova with subpoenas duces tecum. She did not explain, however, why she waited until April to try to serve these two witnesses, about whom her attorneys have known since 2008. She also has not explained to this Court any legally relevant or admissible evidence that either possess, nor how she intends to introduce that evidence in a trial of this defamation claim between Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell. Apart from these witnesses stated intent to take the Fifth Amendment which renders their testimony inadmissible, as discussed more fully below, neither witness has any relevant testimony to offer because Plaintiff never made a public statement about either one of them. 9 Actually, in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service, Plaintiff details that Ms. Marcincova’s counsel stated he no longer represents her. (Doc. #161 at 5) (“counsel for Ms. Giuffre reached out to Ms. Marcinkova’s former counsel but he indicated that he could not accept service as he no longer represents her”). It is unclear then, why Plaintiff persists in representing to this Court that Ms. Marcincova instructed her counsel not to accept service, or why Plaintiff seeks to serve Ms. Marcincova through her former counsel. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 32 15 Plaintiff did not include either woman in her Sharon Churcher-paid interviews, nor were they mentioned in Plaintiff’s Joinder Motion of December 30, 2014. Thus, neither Plaintiff’s allegations about Ms. Maxwell, nor Ms. Maxwell’s denial of the same based on her personal knowledge, are implicated by anything that Ms. Kellen or Ms. Marcincova may have done with anyone else. Their testimony cannot corroborate Plaintiff’s account, nor can it shed light on whether Ms. Maxwell’s denial of that account is accurate, because Plaintiff’s account did not mention either of them. Finally as to these witnesses, Plaintiff once again documented her own failure to comply with Rule 45 in regard to attempts to serve these two witnesses. Six of the service attempts occurred on April 25 and April 26. Yet Plaintiff only provided Notice to Ms. Maxwell of her intent to serve the subpoenas on April 27. Menninger Decl. Ex. I. II. FIFTH AMENDMENT BY EPSTEIN, KELLEN OR MARCINCOVA NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE AGAINST MS. MAXWELL The depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova do not constitute “good cause” to modify the scheduling order in this case for the additional reason that they all have represented to Plaintiff their intention to assert the Fifth Amendment protection as to all questions and such assertion will not be admissible evidence in this trial. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Epstein recently filed a Motion to Quash his subpoena based on the same legal principle that his deposition is unduly burdensome in light of the fact that it will not lead to admissible evidence. (Doc. # 221, 222, 223) The Court should consider this additional factor to decline a finding of “good cause” for extending the discovery deadline. Plaintiff wrongfully contends that any assertion of the Fifth Amendment during the depositions of Epstein, Kellen and Marincova will be admissible in the trial of this defamation matter (where none of those individuals are parties) based on an “adverse inference” that can be Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 32 16 drawn against Ms. Maxwell. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997). In fact, none of the LiButti factors support her argument. While noting that Ms. Maxwell anticipates more extensive briefing on this issue in support of Mr. Epstein’s Motion to Quash, a few facts bear mentioning here: x Ms. Maxwell was the employee of Mr. Epstein --in the 1990s -- not the other way around. Mr. Epstein has never worked for or been in control of Ms. Maxwell. x Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein have had no financial, professional or employment relationship in more than a decade, many years before 2015 when the purportedly defamatory statement was published. Ms. Maxwell testified that she has not spoken to Mr. Epstein in 2 years. x Maxwell has not vested any control in Mr. Epstein “in regard to key facts and subject matter of litigation.” As the Court is well aware from review of emails submitted in camera (and later produced to Plaintiff): o Mr. Epstein and his counsel gave advice to Maxwell regarding whether she should issue a statement after January 2, 2015. In one, Mr. Epstein even suggested what such a statement might say. Maxwell never issued any additional statement. o Maxwell had her own counsel who operated independently of Mr. Epstein and his counsel. x Epstein is not “pragmatically a non-captioned party in interest” in this litigation nor has he “played controlling role in respect to its underlying aspects.” Epstein is not, despie Plaintiff’s suggestion, paying Ms. Maxwell’s legal fees. Plaintiff sought by way of discovery any “contracts,” “indemnification agreements,” “employment agreements” between Ms. Maxwell and Epstein or any entity associated with Epstein, from 1999 to the present. Ms. Maxwell responded under oath that there are no such documents. Epstein played no role in the issuance of the January 2 statement, nor has he issued any public statement regarding Plaintiff. Indeed, Plaintiff and Epstein fully resolved any claims against one another by way of a confidential settlement in 2009, another action in which Ms. Maxwell had no role. x Assertion of the privilege by Epstein does not advance any interest of Ms. Maxwell’s. Quite to the contrary, Epstein would be a key witness in her support, exonerating her from Plaintiff’s allegations regarding sex abuse, sexual trafficking and acting as his “madam” to the stars. As proof, one need look no further than emails already reviewed by this Court. In an email sent by Epstein to Ms. Maxwell on January 25, 2015, while the media maelstrom generated by Plaintiff’s false claims continued to foment, he wrote: “You have done nothing wrong and I would urge you to start acting like it. Go outside, head high, not as an escaping convict. Go to parties. Deal with it.” Menninger Decl. Ex. J Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 32 17 x Likewise, Epstein drafted a statement for Ms. Maxwell to issue (though she never did). In that statement, Epstein wrote (presumably what his testimony would reflect, should he not take the Fifth): “Since JE was charged in 2007 for solicitation of a prostitute I have been the target of outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation and salacious gossip and harassment; headlines made up of quotes I have never given, statements I have never made, trips with people to places I have never been, holidays with people I have never met, false allegations of impropriety and offensive behavior that I abhor and have never ever been party to, witness to events that I have never seen, living off trust funds that I have never ever had, party to stories that have changed materially both in time place and event, depending on what paper you read, and the list goes on. I have never been a party in any criminal action pertaining to JE. For the record: At the time of Jeffrey’s plea, I was in a very long-term committed relationship with another man and no longer working with Jeffrey. Whilst I remained on friendly terms with him up until his plea, I have had limited contact since. Every story in the press innuendo and comment has been taken from civil depositions against JE, which were settled many years ago. None of the depositions were ever subject to cross examination, not one. Any standard of truth and were used for those who claimed they were victims to receive financial payment to be shared between them and their lawyers. One firm created and sold fake cases against Mr. Epstein – the firm subsequently imploded and the (sic) Rothstein, the owner of the firm was sent to jail for 50 years for his crime. The lawyer who is currently representing Virginia (Brad Edwards) was his partner. Need I say more. These so called ‘new revelations’ stem from an alleged diary from VR that reads like the memoirs she is purporting to be selling. Also perhaps pertinent – in a previous complaint against others, her claims were rejected by the police ‘due to ..VR..lack of credibility.” The new interest in this old settled case results from lawyers representing some of JE victims filed a suit against the US government, not JE. They contend that the US govt violated their rights. The documents and deal that JE negotiated with the government was given to the lawyers 6 years ago and is a public document. I am not a part of, nor did you have anything to do with, JE plea bargain. I have never even seen the proceedings nor any of the depositions. I reserve my right to file complaint and sue for defamation and slander.”; Id. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 32 18 These correspondences demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell has no control over Mr. Epstein in regards to the alleged defamation statement, he had no role in issuance of the statement, he has no benefit in the outcome of this litigation and he played no controlling role in its respect. Similarly, there is not any evidence at all to support an adverse inference to be drawn from either Sarah Kellen nor Nadia Marcincova’s assertion of the Fifth. Ms. Maxwell hardly knows either woman, never worked with them, they have had nothing to do with this litigation and do not stand to benefit from it, especially as Plaintiff has never made any allegations about her involvement with either of the two of them, they are simply irrelevant to this defamation action. III. PLAINTIFF’S BAD FAITH DISCOVERY TACTICS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH EXTRA TIME 1. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Revolving Door Plaintiff’s army of lawyers (who collectively have been litigating matters related to Jeffrey Epstein since 2008) served their Rule 26 initial disclosures on November 11, 2015. Those disclosures listed 94 individual witnesses with knowledge regarding the facts of this case, yet provided addresses (only of their counsel) as to just two, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz. Plaintiff then also listed categories of witnesses such as “all other then-minor girls, whose identities Plaintiff will attempt to determine” and “all pilots, chauffeurs, chefs, and other employees of” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff claimed as to her Rule 26 disclosures that “only a fraction of those individuals will actually be witnesses in this case, and as discovery progresses, the list will be further narrowed.” (Doc. #20 at 17) The opposite has happened. Between November 11 and March 11, Plaintiff trimmed her Rule 26 list of persons with knowledge from 94 to 69, inexplicably removing 34 names, but adding 12 more. She removed, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 32 19 for example, witnesses Andrea Mitrovich and Dara Preece, but added Senators George Mitchell, Bill Richardson and Les Wexner. Then between March 11 and June 1, a few weeks before the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff added 20 more witnesses, including President Clinton, Palm Beach officers Recarey and Reiter, and purported “victims of sexual abuse” including a client of Mr. Edwards, who he has clearly known about for years.10 As to several of these newly added witnesses, in particular Recarey and Reiter, Plaintiff promptly scheduled their depositions in June, despite having just disclosed their names on June 1. And last Friday, on the business day just before the depositions of and Recarey, Plaintiff disclosed 623 new documents, including for the first time the “unredacted” police reports from Palm Beach, that Plaintiff clearly has had in her possession, or her counsel’s possession, for years. Menninger Decl. Ex. K. This is precisely the type of hide-and-seek that Rule 26 is designed to prevent. While Ms. Maxwell anticipates filing in the near future a separate motion concerning Plaintiff’s latest Rule 26 violations and seeking sanctions for the same, this Court can and should consider this behavior in determining whether Plaintiff has “good cause” to extend the discovery cut-off so that she can continue her gamesmanship. 2. Plaintiff’s Recurrent Rule 45 Violations As this Court has previously held: Rule 45(b)(1) requires a party issuing a subpoena for the production of documents to a nonparty to “provide prior notice to all parties to the litigation,” which has been interpreted to “require that notice be given prior to the issuance of the subpoena, not prior to its return date.” Murphy v. Board of Educ., 196 F.R.D. 220, 222 (W.D.N.Y.2000). At least one court in this circuit has held that notice provided on the same day that the subpoenas have been served constitutes inadequate notice under Rule 45. See, e.g., Fox Industries, Inc. v. Gurovich, No. 03–CV–5166, 2006 WL 2882580, *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006). … The 10 Rather than list his client’s address in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Office, Mr. Edwards said her address is “c/o” himself. - -----------------~ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 32 20 requirement that prior notice “must be given has important underpinnings of fairness and efficiency.” Cootes Drive LLC v. Internet Law Library, Inc., No. 01– CV–9877, 2002 WL 424647, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2002). Plaintiff fails to provide an adequate explanation or argument for how a same-day notification satisfies Rule 45's requirements. See, e.g., id. (“[C]ounsel for the [offending party] offered no explanation or excuse for their failure to comply with the rule's strictures. They did not attempt to defend the timeliness of their notice. The [offending party's] admitted violation ... cannot be countenanced.”). Usov v. Lazar, 13-cv-818 (RWS), 2014 WL 4354691, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) (granting motion to quash the subpoenas where notice given on the same day and served beyond 100 mile limitation of Rule 45). In that case, Plaintiff had provided same day notice of the issuance of a subpoena. Here, we have repeated attempts to serve a subpoena over the course of days before any notice was given to Ms. Maxwell. As described previously, Plaintiff has amply documented her own violations of the Rule by detailing her attempts to serve subpoenas duces tecum before ever providing notice to Ms. Maxwell with regards to witnesses Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova. Likewise, with respect to witness, Alexandra Hall, Plaintiff served the subpoena prior to providing notice. See Menninger Decl. Ex. L. Served subpoenas before providing Notice under Rule 45. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas on Epstein, Kellen and Marcincova as violations of Rule 45’s notice provision. Ms. Maxwell further requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for these documented violations. With respect to Ms. Hall, who was deposed already earlier today, Ms. Maxwell believes that she did not offer any admissible testimony at her deposition. If Plaintiff’s seek to introduce her testimony, the defense reserves the right to exclude such testimony both on evidentiary grounds as well as in violation of Rule 45’s notice provision. 11 IV. MS. MAXWELL’S GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 11 Counsel for Ms. Maxwell only learned of the Rule 45 violation this past weekend after reviewing certificates of service provided by Plaintiff’s counsel last week, without sufficient time to file a motion to quash the subpoena on Ms. Hall. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 32 21 As already documented in previous pleadings, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel has engaged in significant and repeated efforts to conduct discovery in this case in a professional, civil manner, especially as it relates to the depositions of non-parties. On February 25, 2016, counsel for Ms. Maxwell requested that the lawyers confer by telephone to arrange a schedule for the non-party depositions to occur in various states and countries.12 Plaintiff ignored that request, and requests of the same ilk made on at least 6 different occasions in March and April. It was only on two and ½ months later, on May 5, 2016, when Plaintiff’s counsel finally responded with “as is becoming clear, both sides are going to be needing to be coordinating a number of depositions.”13 She then proposed a calendar which scheduled 13 additional depositions for Plaintiff and only 2 days (actually ½ days) for defendant to depose her remaining witnesses. 14 Defendant provided a calendar which allowed for both sides to take remaining depositions, but Plaintiff ignored it and continued to schedule depositions on dates for witnesses without consulting defense counsel for their availability first. Menninger Decl., Ex. M. Because of the breakdown in communications, defense counsel was left with little choice but to (a) show up at each of Plaintiff’s noticed depositions, in Florida and New York, and (b) issue subpoenas for witness depositions on other dates in June. For example, Plaintiff issued a 12 McCawley Decl. in Support of Request to Exceed Ten Deposition Limit, Exhibit 1 (Doc. # 173-1) at 28 (Letter of Menninger to McCawley (Feb. 25, 2015) (“I would suggest that rather than repeated emails on the topic of scheduling the various depositions in this case, or the unilateral issuance of deposition notices and subpoenas, you and I have a phone conference wherein we discuss which depositions are going to be taken, where, and a plan for doing them in an orderly fashion that minimizes travel and inconvenience for counsel and the witnesses. As you are well aware from your own practice of law, attorneys have other clients, other court dates and other commitments to work around. The FRCP and Local Rules contemplate courtesy and cooperation among counsel in the scheduling and timing of discovery processes. This rule makes even more sense in a case such as this spanning various parts of the country where counsel must engage in lengthy travel and the attendant scheduling of flights, hotels and rental cars.”)). 13 Id. at 19. 14 Id. at 1-3. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 32 22 Notice of Deposition for Juan Alessi on May 31, 2016, without any conferral with counsel, in Florida, fully aware that defense counsel would be traveling from Colorado. Defense counsel, in fact, did have to travel on Memorial Day to Florida for the 9:00 a.m. May 31 deposition. Mr. Alessi, however, did not appear on that date, believing that his deposition was for June 1, the same day that his wife had been subpoenaed to appear and because he and his wife live an hour away from Ft. Lauderdale. Thus, despite defense counsel’s herculean efforts, no deposition occurred on May 31. On June 1, Mr. Alessi appeared, but there was insufficient time to take his wife’s deposition, who presumably made the one hour drive for naught. Also, defense counsel then had to travel to New York for the June 2 hearing and back to Florida for a deposition of another witness, Mr. Rogers, that had been scheduled without input from defense counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff makes much of her efforts to serve witnesses Epstein, Marcincova and Kellen. She fails to advise the Court that Ms. Maxwell has been “forced” to expend great time, money and resources to serve Plaintiff’s own mother, father, former fiancé and former boyfriend. As described before, the defense even re-scheduled the deposition of Plaintiff’s former fiancé due to the last minute unavailability of Plaintiff’s counsel, although all counsel were already in Florida and had expended hundreds of dollars to serve him. Plaintiff made no effort to help serve those closest to her, including her own family members. Unlike Plaintiff, however, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel are fully aware that such are the difficulties of litigation. We do not ascribe to Plaintiff the blame. Having flown to Florida a total of four separate times to attend depositions of five of Plaintiff’s noticed witnesses, defense counsel has borne the brunt of Plaintiff’s mismanagement of counsel and witness time. Defense counsel scheduled their own Florida depositions of three witnesses to occur during two of the four trips. Defense counsel offered to, and did, schedule the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 32 23 two Colorado non-party witnesses the same week in May, so as minimize Plaintiff’s counsel’s travel obligations. Plaintiff, however, rescheduled the deposition of Mr. Rizzo in New York for a week after this Court had a hearing, rather than accommodating any attempt to have the New York deposition occur when all counsel were already present in NY. To the extent the Court wishes to consider the good faith efforts of defense counsel in conducting depositions when deciding whether to grant Plaintiff additional time, defense has more than met their burden. V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO TAKE RE-DEPOSE PLAINTIFF AND TO DEPOSE SHARON CHURCHER EXISTS In contrast to the lack of good cause to extend discovery for Plaintiff’s six witnesses, Ms. Maxwell seeks leave of the Court to take depositions beyond June 30. First, Ms. Maxwell properly served a deposition subpoena (and provided appropriate notice to Plaintiff’s counsel) on Plaintiff’s friend, confidante and former-Daily Mail journalist, Sharon Churcher for a deposition to occur in New York on June 16. Menninger Decl. Ex. N. On June 15, the day before her scheduled deposition, Ms. Churcher’s counsel filed a Motion to Quash. That motion is to be heard by this Court on June 23. Should the Court deny the Motion to Quash, Ms. Churcher’s deposition would need to be re-scheduled. Dates in early July would be sufficient for counsel. Similarly, Ms. Maxwell is filing simultaneously with this Motion a request to re-open the deposition of Plaintiff on the grounds, inter alia, that she failed to provide numerous documents (ordered to be produced by this Court) until after her deposition (and still has failed to provide others)15, she materially changed substantive and significant portions of her testimony after the 15 For example, Ms. Giuffre testified that she had approximately 8 boxes, which included documents pertinent to this case, which she shipped from her home in Colorado to Australia in October 2015 to an undisclosed location (at her deposition, she would not testify where in Australia the boxes were located), and that the boxes had not been searched for responsive documents. Menninger Decl. Ex. D. In repeated conferrals following her deposition, on May 19, her counsel finally agreed to secure the boxes. As of today’s date, the boxes still have not arrived, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 32 24 fact through her errata sheet on May 31, and she refused to answer material questions at her deposition on the advice of counsel, including for example, which of Ms. Churcher’s many quotes attributed to her were incorrect. See,e g., Menninger Decl. Ex. D, referenced supra. As with Ms. Churcher’s deposition, the re-opened deposition of Plaintiff could occur in early July, assuming she provides the Court-ordered documents timely. VI. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL OTHER DEADLINES NEED TO BE EXTENDED Finally, Plaintiff glibly asserts that she seeks only 30 extra days to conduct her depositions, but does not want any other dates moved. Of course, that inures to her benefit and to Ms. Maxwell’s detriment. July already was scheduled for expert disclosures (Plaintiff has yet to disclose her retained expert, and thus the defense has been unable to secure a rebuttal expert). Likewise, should any new information be learned in these late depositions that requires rebuttal, Ms. Maxwell will be unable to secure such evidence on a timely basis. Further, summary judgment motions are due in this case on August 3. If depositions continue throughout August, Ms. Maxwell’s ability to include any late-learned information in her anticipated motion will be jeopardized. Finally, the trial is scheduled for October, continuing fact discovery until August seriously impinges on Ms. Maxwell’s ability to prepare for that trial, including preparing witnesses, exhibits and testimony. WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion to Extend the Deadline to Complete Depositions be denied; alternatively, if the deadline is extended for any of the listed six witnesses, Ms. Maxwell requests that the dates for expert discovery, dispositive motions and the trial date by extended as well. Further, Ms. Maxwell requests sanctions for Plaintiff’s failures to comply with the notice provisions of Rule 45(a)(4). apparently having been put on the slow boat to the US. One can only imagine where on the high seas the boxes may be located now. Of course, there were many alternative methods to search the boxes. The unknown custodians in Australia for example could have simply looked in them to see whether they contained any responsive documents. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 32 25 Dated: June 20, 2016. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 32 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 20, 2016, I electronically served this DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE DEPOSITIONS AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 45 via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Extending Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion for Sanctions for Violations of Rule 45 I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Extending Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion for Sanctions for Violations of Rule 45. 2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo on June 10, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 3. Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of The Billionaire Playboys Club book manuscript drafted by Plaintiff, designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order ............................................ ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 32 2 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a report by former FBI director, Louis Freeh. 5. Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition on May 3, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 6. Attached as Exhibit E are true and correct copies of May 23, 2016 correspondence from Meredith Shulz and May 25, 2016 correspondence from myself. 7. Attached as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of Notices of Subpoena with attachments for Jean Luc Brunel, served on February 16, 2016 and May 23, 2016, as well as correspondence regarding Mr. Brunel’s deposition from counsel, Bradley Edwards. 8. Attached as Exhibit G is a Motion to Quash filed by counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in Broward County, Florida in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, Case No. 15-0000072 on September 10, 2015. 9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition and Subpoena for Jeffrey Epstein, served on counsel on April 27, 2016. 10. Attached as Exhbit I are true and correct copies of the Notices of Deposition and Subpoena for Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcincova, served on counsel on April 27, 2016. 11. Attached as Exhibit J (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of correspondence produced in this case between Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein from January 2015, and designated as Confidential by Defendant under the Protective Order. 12. Attached as Exhibit K (filed under seal) are Notices of Deposition and Subpoena for , Joe Recarey and Michael Reiter and a letter of production from Sigrid McCawley of June 17, 2016, designated as Confidential by Plaintiff under the Protective Order. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 32 3 13. Attached as Exhibit L (filed under seal) is the certificate of service for 14. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of my correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel of May 25, 2016. 15. Attached as Exhibit N is a Notice of Subpoena and Deposition for Sharon Churcher on June 16, and the certificate of service dated June 4. By: /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 20, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Extending Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion for Sanctions for Violations of Rule 45 via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-28 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 32 (;+,%,7$ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-29 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 6 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Case No.: -against- 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x **CONFIDENTIAL** Videotaped deposition of RINALDO RIZZO, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York, commencing June 10, 2016, 10:06 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. - - - MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 1200 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 (866) 624-6221 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-29 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 6 2 (Pages 2 to 5) Page 2 1 2 $33($5$1&(6 3 )$50(5-$))(:(,66,1*(':$5'6),6726 /(+50$13/ 4 $WWRUQH\VIRU3ODLQWLII 1$QGUHZV$YHQXH 5 )RUW/DXGHUGDOH)ORULGD %<%5$'(':$5'6(648,5( 6 7 +$''21025*$1)25(0$1 8 $WWRUQH\VIRU'HIHQGDQW (DVWWK$YHQXH 9 'HQYHU&RORUDGR %<-())5(<63$*/,8&$(648,5( 10 11 )5((0$1/(:,6//3 12 $WWRUQH\VIRUWKH:LWQHVV (DVWWK6WUHHW 13 1HZ<RUN1HZ<RUN %<52%(57/(:,6(64 14 15 $OVR3UHVHQW 16 52'2/)2'85$19LGHRJUDSKHU 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page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age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age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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-29 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 6 33 (Pages 126 to 129) Page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age 127 1 55L]]R&RQILGHQWLDO 2 :HDUHJRLQJRIIWKHUHFRUG 3 5HFHVV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age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age 129 1 55L]]R&RQILGHQWLDO 2 \RXGLGLQDGYDQFHRIFRPLQJKHUHWRGD\ 3 +DYH\RXWDONHGWR0U(GZDUGV 4 EHIRUH" 5 $<HV 6 4$QGZKHQKDYH\RXWDONHGWR0U 7 (GZDUGV" 8 $,GRQ WUHFDOOWKHH[DFWGDWHDQG 9 WLPH 10 4'LG0U(GZDUGVFDOO\RXRUGLG\RX 11 FDOO0U(GZDUGVILUVW" 12 $,FDOOHGKLP 13 4:KHQGLG\RXFDOO0U(GZDUGV" 14 $,GRQ WUHFDOOWKHH[DFWGDWHDQG 15 WLPH 16 4<HDUVDJRGD\VDJRPRQWKVDJR" 17 $,W VEHHQDWOHDVWRYHUD\HDU 18 4:K\GLG\RXFDOO0U(GZDUGV" 19 $$WWKHWLPH,ZDVKDYLQJDYHU\ 20 KDUGWLPHZLWKP\DWWRUQH\0\ZLIHDQG, 21 KDGGLVFXVVHGWKHLVVXH$VP\ZLIHSXWLW 22 ZHQHHGHGDQDWWRUQH\ZLWKEDOOVDQGVKHKDG 23 EHHQNHHSLQJWUDFNRIWKH-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 24 LVVXHDQGEDVLFDOO\LQRXUFRQYHUVDWLRQ 25 05/(:,6/HWPHVWRS\RXWKHUH - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-29 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 6 34 (Pages 130 to 133) Page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age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age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age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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-29 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 6 35 (Pages 134 to 137) Page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age 135 1 55L]]R&RQILGHQWLDO 2 ZRXOGEHDVXEMHFWPDWWHUZDLYHURI 3 HYHU\WKLQJWKDWKHKDVWDONHGDERXW, 4 GRQ WNQRZZK\LWPDNHVDGLIIHUHQFHLI 5 KHLVWDONLQJDERXWLWQRZDQGKHWROG 6 0U(GZDUGV,WKLQNKHFDQWDONDERXW 7 ZKDWKHVDLGWR0U(GZDUGV,WVHHPV 8 WRPHWKHUHLVDZDLYHUKHUH 9 05/(:,6<RXDUHSUHVXPLQJZKDW 10 KHVDLGWR0U(GZDUGV$QGVHFRQGO\ 11 MXVWEHFDXVHHYHQLIWKDWZHUHWKH 12 FDVH, PQRWVD\LQJLWLVMXVWEHFDXVH 13 \RXWHVWLI\WRLQFLGHQWVZKLFK\RXWHOO 14 \RXUDWWRUQH\DERXWGRHVQ WPHDQWKH 15 GLVFORVXUHVWR\RXUDWWRUQH\DUHQRW 16 SULYLOHJHG 17 053$*/,8&$)DLUHQRXJK:HFDQ 18 DUJXHDERXWWKLVODWHULIZHQHHGWR 19 %<053$*/,8&$ 20 42WKHUWKDQ0U(GZDUGVDQG\RXU 21 ZLIHDQG\RXUFXUUHQWDWWRUQH\KDYH\RX 22 WDONHGWRDQ\RQHHOVHDERXWWKHWKLQJVWKDW 23 \RX YHWDONHGDERXWKHUHWRGD\" 24 $1R,KDYHQRW 25 4,WKLQN\RXDQVZHUHGWKLVTXHVWLRQ Page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age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 23 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5%DFNRQWKH 24 UHFRUG 25 053$*/,8&$7KHSDUWLHVKDYH MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-29 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 27 GIUFFRE vs. MAXWELL Deposition VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 05/03/2016 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 216 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver Colorado, 80202 303-296-0017 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS CONFIDENTIAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE May 3, 2016 VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. APPEARANCES: FAMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. By Brad Edwards, Esq. 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.524.2820 brad@pathtojustice.com Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. (For Portion) 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2211 Phone: 954.356.0011 smccawley@bsfllp.com Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. APPEARANCES: (Continued) HADDON, MORGAN AND FORMAN, P.C. By Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Appearing on behalf of the Defendant Also Present: 8 Brenda Rodriguez, Paralegal 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Nicholas F. Borgia, CLVS Videographer VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 Pursuant to Notice and the Federal Rules 2 of Civil Procedure, the VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 3 VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, called by Defendant, was taken on 4 Tuesday, May 3, 2016, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at 150 5 East 10th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, before Kelly A. 6 Mackereth, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered 7 Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter 8 and Notary Public within Colorado. 9 10 11 12 13 EXAMINATION MS. MENNINGER * * * * * * * I N D E X 14 PRODUCTION REQUEST(S): 15 (None. ) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 PAGE 8 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 wanted to know about the Prince Andrew incident. 2 3 4 Q A Q So that's a different piece of paper? Yeah, that's just random paper. So you had a green spiral notebook that 5 you began sometime in 2011 or 2012 in which you wrote 6 down your recollections about what had happened to 7 you, and you burned that in a bonfire in 2013. 8 Did I get that right? 9 10 A Q You got that right. And do you have no other names of people 11 to whom you claim Ghislaine Maxwell directed you to 12 have sex, correct? 13 A At this time, no. 14 Q Is there any document that would refresh 15 your recollection that you could look at? 16 A If you have a document you'd like to show 17 me, I would be glad to look at it and tell you the 18 names I recognize off of that. 19 Q I'm just asking you if there's a document 20 you know of that has this list of names in it? 21 22 A Q Not in front of me, no. Where is the original of the photograph 23 that has been widely circulated in the press of you 24 with Prince Andrew? 25 A I probably still have it. It's not in my VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 208 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 possession right now. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q A Q A Q A Where is it? Probably in some storage boxes. Where? In Sydney. Where in Sydney? At some family's house. We got the boxes 8 shipped to Australia, and they were picked up off the 9 porch by my nephews and brought to their house. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q A Q A Q A Which is where? In Sydney. Where in Sydney? Bass Hill. And who lives in that house? Well, it's owned by my mother-in-law and 16 father-in-law, but my nephews live in the house. 17 18 Q A 19 nephews. 20 21 22 Q A Q What are their names? I'm not giving you the names of my What's the address of the house? Why would you want that? I want to know where the photograph is. 23 I'm asking you where the photograph is. And you've 24 just told me it's somewhere in Bass Hill? 25 A Yes. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 209 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 Q So where in Bass Hill is the photograph 2 located? 3 A If I can't 100 percent say that the 4 photograph is there, it could be at my house that I 5 presently live in. I'm not going to give you the 6 address of my nephews' residence. 7 Q When is the last time you saw the 8 photograph in person? 9 10 11 12 A Q A Q When I packed and left America. Colorado? Yes. All right. So you had that photograph 13 here with you in Colorado? 14 15 16 17 A Q A Q 18 photograph? Yes. What's on the back of the photograph? I'm sorry? Is there anything on the back of the 19 A There's like the date it was printed, but 20 no writing or anything. 21 22 Q A Okay. Does it say where it was printed? I don't believe so. I think it just 23 don't remember. I just remember there's a date on 24 it. 25 Q Whose camera was it taken with? VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 I 210 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q 11 printed? 12 13 14 A Q A My little yellow Kodak camera. Who took the picture? Jeffrey Epstein. And where did you have it developed? I believe when I got back to America. So where? I don't know. Palm Beach? I don't know. What is the date the photograph was I believe it's in March 2001. Okay. But that's just off of my photographic 15 memory. I don't -- it could be different, but I 16 think it's March 2001. 17 Q You have a photographic memory? 18 A I'm not saying I have a photographic 19 memory. But if I'd look at the back of the photo and 20 I remember what it says, I believe it was March 2001. 21 Q Did the photograph ever leave your 22 possession for a while? 23 24 25 A Q A I gave it to the FBI. Okay. And when did you get it back? When they took copies of it. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 211 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 was Q A Q A Q in A Q Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. When was that? 2011. When they came to interview you? Yes. So from 2011 until you left Colorado it your personal possession? Yes. What other documents related to this case 9 are in that, storage boxes in Australia? 10 11 12 A MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. Documents related to this case -- there I don't know. I really can't tell you. I mean, 13 there's seven boxes full of Nerf guns, my kids' toys, 14 photos. I don't know what other documents would be 15 in there. 16 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did anyone search 17 those documents after you received discovery requests 18 from us in this case? 19 20 A I haven't been able to obtain those boxes. I can't get them sent back up to me. It's going to 21 cost me a large amount of money. And right now I'm 22 trying to look after my family, so I'm not able to 23 afford to get them up. 24 25 Q A You live in Australia, correct? I do. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 212 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 Q Okay. How far away are the boxes from 2 where you live in Australia? 3 A Sydney is down here at the bottom. Cairns 4 is up here at the top. Okay. It's probably a six-day drive. Did you fly here through Sydney? No. 5 6 7 8 9 Q A Q A Q Have you been to Sydney since you've moved 10 back to Australia? 11 A I flew into Sydney with my three kids, but 12 it was a connecting flight to Brisbane. 13 Q Did you ask your nephews or anyone else to 14 search those boxes in response to discovery requests 15 that we issued in this case? 16 A They are my nephews. I would never let 17 them look at those. 18 Q Other than your green spiral notebook, 19 what else did you burn in this bonfire in 2013? 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q That was it. That's the only thing? Yes. Did you use wood? Yes. Charcoal? VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 213 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 27 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 A My husband built the bonfire out of wood 2 and I don't know what else he put in it. He's the 3 one who always makes the fires, not me. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Who else was present? Just him and I. Were your kids there? No. They were inside sleeping. And what beach was this? It wasn't a beach. It was in my backyard. What's your address? At that time? Um-hum. Yes. Who were your neighbors? Sweet people. Ray and -- I could look on 18 my phone if you want. 19 20 21 22 Q A Q A 23 months ago. 24 25 Q A No, thank you. Do they still live there? Yes. Do you keep in touch with them? Last time I talked to them was a few Did they see the fire? They've seen many fires that we've had. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 214 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 We've had lots of bonfires there. 2 Q Did you ever ride in a helicopter with 3 Ghislaine Maxwell acting as pilot of the helicopter? 4 5 A Q Yes. Who else was on the flight? 6 A I've been on the helicopter with her 7 plenty of times. I can't mention how many people 8 were on the -- on the helicopter at the same time. 9 10 Q A How many times? I don't know. Do you have helicopter 11 records that you could show me? 12 Q I'm asking you how many times you were on 13 the helicopter with Ghislaine Maxwell acting as the 14 15 pilot -- A It's impossible for me to answer the 16 question without having the actual physical records 17 in front of me. 18 Q I'm asking you to look into your memory 19 and tell me how many times you recall being on a 20 helicopter with Ghislaine Maxwell at the pilot seat? 21 A There is no number I can give you. 22 There's plenty of times I've been on her helicopter. 23 Q Where did you go from and to on a 24 helicopter? 25 A I believe it was -- don't quote me on this VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 215 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 because I get confused on the islands there. I want 2 to say it was St. John's. It could have been 3 St. Barts. St. John or St. Barts, and then we would 4 fly straight to Jeffrey's island. 5 Q Okay. Did you ever go anywhere else on 6 the helicopter? 7 8 A Q No. Were you ever on the helicopter with Bill 9 Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell as the pilot of the 10 helicopter? 11 12 A Q No. Were you ever on the helicopter with Bill 13 Clinton's Secret Service and Ghislaine Maxwell as the 14 15 16 17 18 19 pilot? A Q you were? A Q No. Do you recall telling Sharon Churcher that No. Did you see the press article in which 20 Sharon Churcher reported that you were? 21 MR. EDWARDS: Objection. I'd just ask 22 that if you're going to ask this witness about a 23 specific article I'd like for her to see the article. 24 Otherwise she's not going to testify about it. 25 If you have something to show her, then, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 216 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 please. 2 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Do you recall seeing a 3 press article in which Sharon Churcher reported that 4 you were on a helicopter with Bill Clinton and 5 Ghislaine Maxwell as the pilot? 6 MR. EDWARDS: Again, I'll let you answer 7 the question once she's looking at the document that 8 you're being asked about. 9 MS. MENNINGER: You're not letting her 10 answer a question about whether she recalls a 11 particular press statement? 12 MR. EDWARDS: I will let her answer every 13 question about the press statement as long as she 14 sees the press statement. I'm okay with that. She 15 can answer all of them. 16 MS. MENNINGER: No, there is a rule of 17 civil procedure that allows you to direct a witness 18 not to answer a question when there's a claim of 19 privilege. 20 What privilege are you claiming to direct 21 her not to answer this question? 22 MR. EDWARDS: I thought that you wanted 23 accurate answers from this witness. If the 24 MS. MENNINGER: I asked her if she 25 recalled something -- VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 217 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 MR. EDWARDS: If the sole purpose is to 2 just to harass her -- 3 MS. MENNINGER: I asked her if she 4 recalled something -- 5 MR. EDWARDS: Then that's just not going 6 to be what's happening today. 7 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. So you're 8 refusing to answer a question about whether you 9 recall a particular press statement 10 11 12 Q MR. EDWARDS: She's -- (BY MS. MENNINGER) -- is that true? MR. EDWARDS: She is not refusing to 13 answer any questions. She -- 14 A I'm not refusing to answer. I just want 15 to see the article you're talking about so I can be 16 clear in my statement. 17 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Do you recall seeing a 18 press article written by Sharon Churcher reporting 19 that you flew on a helicopter with Bill Clinton and 20 Ghislaine Maxwell as the pilot? 21 A No, I do not recall reading a press 22 article saying that I was on a helicopter with Bill 23 Clinton as Ghislaine is the pilot. 24 Q Do you recall telling Sharon Churcher that 25 you had conversations with Bill Clinton regarding him VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 218 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 flying on a helicopter with Ghislaine Maxwell? 2 A I believe that it was taken out of 3 context. Ghislaine told me that she flew Bill 4 Clinton in. And Ghislaine likes to talk a lot of 5 stuff that sounds fantastical. And whether it's true 6 or not, that is what I do recall telling Sharon 7 Churcher. 8 Q So you told Sharon Churcher that Ghislaine 9 Maxwell is the one who told you that she flew Bill 10 Clinton in the helicopter? 11 A I told Sharon Churcher that Ghislaine flew 12 Bill Clinton onto the island, based upon what 13 Ghislaine had told me. 14 Q Not based upon what Bill Clinton had told 15 you, correct? 16 17 A Q Correct. Did you ever ask Sharon Churcher to 18 correct anything that was printed under her name, 19 concerning your stories to Sharon Churcher? 20 A I wasn't given those stories to read 21 before they were printed. 22 23 Q A After they were printed did you read them? I tried to stay away from them. They were 24 very hard. You have to understand it was a very hard 25 time for me and my husband to have to have this VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 219 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 public -- we didn't think it was going to be this 2 publicly announced and that big. So we turned off 3 the news and we stopped reading so many things. 4 Q You didn't read the articles about your 5 stories to Sharon Churcher 6 A I've read some articles 7 Q Let me just finish. You did not read the 8 articles published by Sharon Churcher about your 9 stories to Sharon Churcher? 10 A I have read some articles about what 11 Sharon Churcher wrote. And a lot of the stuff that 12 she writes she takes things from my own mouth and 13 changes them into her own words as journalists do. 14 And I never came back to her and told her 15 to correct anything. What was done was done. There 16 was nothing else I can do. 17 Q So even if she printed something that were 18 untrue you didn't ask her to correct it, correct? 19 A There was things that she printed that 20 really pissed me off, but there was nothing I could 21 22 do about it. It's already out there. Q She printed things that were untrue, 23 correct? 24 MR. EDWARDS: Objection to the form. 25 Mischaracterization. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 220 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 A I wouldn't say that they were untrue. I 2 would just say that she printed them as journalists 3 take your words and turn them into something else. 4 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) She got it wrong? 5 MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. 6 Mischaracterization. 7 8 A Q In some ways, yes. (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did she print things 9 in her articles that you did not say to her? 10 MR. EDWARDS: I object and ask that the 11 witness be given the opportunity to see the document 12 so that she can review it and answer that question 13 accurately. Otherwise she's unable to answer the 14 question. I'm not going to allow her to answer. 15 MS. MENNINGER: You know the civil rules 16 tell you not to suggest answers to your client. 17 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) And you understand 18 your lawyer is now directing you to not all of a 19 sudden remember what your answer is. That's what 20 he's suggesting that you say. So you're not supposed 21 to listen to him suggest that to you. You're 22 supposed to tell me from your memory. 23 24 25 Q MR. EDWARDS: That is not what I'm -- (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did you -- MR. EDWARDS: That's not what I'm doing. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 221 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 You don't get to just talk over me and 2 tell my client when not to listen to me. All you 3 have to do to get answers is show her the document 4 you're talking about, and I'll let her answer every 5 question. I don't know why we're so scared of the 6 actual documents. 7 MS. MENNINGER: I don't know why you're 8 scared of your client's recollection, Mr. Edwards. 9 But anyway 10 MR. EDWARDS: Why would you do this to 11 her? 12 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did Sharon Churcher 13 print things that you did not say? 14 MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to instruct my 15 client not to answer unless you give her what it is 16 that you're talking about that was printed. And she 17 will tell you the answer, the accurate answer to your 18 question. Just without the document to refresh her 19 recollection and see it, she's not going to answer 20 the question. 21 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did Sharon Churcher 22 print things that you did not say? 23 MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same 24 instruction not to answer. 25 I think I've made a very clear record as VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 222 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 to why I want my client to answer all of these 2 questions, but I want her to have the fair 3 opportunity to see this document. 4 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did Sharon Churcher 5 print things that you felt were inaccurate? 6 MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same 7 instruction. If she sees the document, she's going 8 to answer every one of these questions. 9 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did any other reporter 10 print statements that you believe are inaccurate? 11 MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same 12 instruction. 13 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Did any reporter print 14 statements about Ghislaine Maxwell that were 15 inaccurate? 16 MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same 17 instruction. 18 This is harassing. This is harassing a 19 sexual abuse victim. And all I'm asking is for 20 fairness, that we just let her see the document so 21 she can answer this. 22 MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Edwards, please stop 23 saying anything other than an objection, what the 24 basis is, or instructing your client not to answer. 25 MR. EDWARDS: I will do that. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 223 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 MS. MENNINGER: That's what the Federal 2 Rules of Civil Procedure provide. 3 MR. EDWARDS: I hear you. They also 4 provide for fairness and civility. And all I'm 5 asking, very calmly, is for her to see this. 6 MS. MENNINGER: Mr. Edwards, this is not 7 your deposition. I'm asking your client what she 8 remembers. If she doesn't want to talk about what 9 she remembers, then let her not answer. But you 10 cannot instruct her not to answer unless there's a 11 privilege. 12 What privilege -- 13 MR. EDWARDS: I am instructing her not to 14 answer. 15 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) All right. You are 16 refusing to answer questions about whether statements 17 to the press about Ghislaine Maxwell attributed to 18 you were inaccurate? 19 MR. EDWARDS: She's not refusing not to 20 answer. 21 A You are refusing to show me these 22 documents so I could answer properly. I would give 23 you an answer if you were to show me some documents. 24 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) You can't say without 25 looking at a document whether the press attributed to VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 224 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 you is accurate or inaccurate? 2 3 A Q Please show me the document. You can't say from the top of your head 4 whether any inaccurate statement has been attributed 5 to you in the press? 6 A Please show me a document and I will tell 7 you. 8 Q Are you refusing to answer my questions 9 about your knowledge of whether inaccurate statements 10 have been attributed to you in the press? 11 A Are you refusing to give me the documents 12 to look at? 13 Q Are you refusing to answer the question? 14 A I am refusing to answer the question based 15 upon the fact that you are not being fair enough to 16 let me see the document in order to give you an 17 honest answer. 18 19 20 Q A Q Ms. Giuffre Yes. -- we are talking about press that has 21 been published on the Internet, correct? 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q Yes. Do you have access to the Internet? Yes. Have you looked on the Internet and read VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 225 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 articles that attribute statements to you about 2 Ghislaine Maxwell? 3 4 A Q Yes. Do you know any statement that has been 5 attributed to you in a press article on the Internet 6 about Ghislaine Maxwell that is untrue? 7 MR. EDWARDS: Same objection. Same 8 instruction. 9 A Please show me a specific document. 10 Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Do you know of any 11 such statement about Ghislaine Maxwell attributed to 12 you by the press that is inaccurate? 13 A If you could please show me a specific 14 document. 15 Q Tell me what Sharon Churcher asked you to 16 write for her. 17 A Any knowledge that I had about my time 18 with Prince Andrew. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q And did you write it? Um-hum. What did you write it in or on? Paper. What kind of paper? Lined paper. Was it in a book or single sheets? VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 226 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 2 A Q Single sheets. And did you write a long document or a 3 short document? What was it? 4 A I can't recall how long the document was, 5 but I would say it would be a few pages. 6 Q And other than asking you to write 7 whatever you remember about Prince Andrew, did she 8 give you any other directions about what you should 9 write? 10 A She was interested in two things, really. 11 How Epstein got away with so many counts of child 12 13 14 15 16 trafficking involved in Q A Q for it. What She Did sex and how Those were did she ask asked me to she tell you Prince Andrew was her two main inquiries. you to write? write about Prince Andrew. to put it in your own 17 handwriting? 18 A No, she just asked me to write down what I 19 can remember. 20 Q 21 wrote? 22 A 23 I wrote? 24 25 Q A Did you give her everything that you Did I give her the whole entire pages that Yes. Yeah, I wrote pages for her specifically. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 227 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 Q A Q A Q 6 paper? 7 8 A Q In your own handwriting? In my own handwriting. And what you wrote, was that true? Yes. And did you get paid for those pieces of Not for the papers, I don't believe. Okay. Have you gotten paid when they've 9 been reprinted? 10 11 A Q 12 Online? 13 14 A Q No. Have you negotiated any deal with Radar No. Have you negotiated any deal with Sharon 15 Churcher for the purpose of publishing those pieces 16 of paper? 17 18 19 20 21 A Q A Q Not those pieces of paper. When did you write those pieces of paper? MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. A week before she came out. (BY MS. MENNINGER) And when did you give 22 them to her? 23 24 25 A Q A When she came out. When was that? Sometime, I believe, in early 2011. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 228 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 27 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 1 Q What did you get paid for, if not for 2 those pieces of paper? 3 4 A MR. EDWARDS: Object to the form. I was paid for the picture with Prince 5 Andrew with his arm around me, Ghislaine in the 6 background. And I was paid for the, I guess, the 7 print of the stories. 8 9 10 Q A Q 11 paper? 12 13 A Q (BY MS. MENNINGER) Anything else? No. You were not paid for those pieces of No. All right. And how many pieces of paper 14 did you write? 15 16 17 A Q A Like I said, I'm rounding it around three. Three pieces of paper? That's what I -- I don't remember to be 18 exact on a number. I'm sorry. But over three pages. 19 20 21 me. 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A And you wrote those sometime in 2011? The week that she was coming out to see And you gave them to her, right? I gave them to her. Did you keep a copy of that? No. VIRGINIA GIUFFRE 5/3/2016 229 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-30 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 27 EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 24 Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff: V. Ghislaine Maxwell, Dc1endanL. United States District Court Southern District of New York Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS I - - - - ---------- NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RlTT~E 45 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMAT[ON, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PRE.MISES UPO)l JEAN LUC BRUNEL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuantto Rule 45 oftbc .Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, hereby provides Notice of Service of Subpoena to Produt:e Documents, [nformation, or Objects or to Permit Tnspection of Premises upon Jean Luc Brunel. A copy of the Subpoena is attacJ1ed to this Notice as Exhibit A. Dared: February 16, 2016 By: /s/ Si grid l\lkCawley Sigrid Mccawley (Admitted Pro Hae Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FT. 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boil:s Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY l 0504 Ellen Brockman Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Ave New York, New York 10022 (212) 446-2300 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 24 CERTU'lCATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 16, 2016, l served the foregoing document on the individuals identified below via email. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. IIADDON, MORGAN & FOREI'v1A1\, P.C. 150 East I 0 111 A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. Mccawley Sigrid S. Mccawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 24 /\0 8813 (Rev 02114) Subpocn~ 10 Produce D on1111c11ls, lnfur mali(,ln, nr Objects or 10 Permit Inspection ,1f Premi., es in a C,v il Ac1ion To: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT Virginia L. Giuffre l'lai11tijf V. Ghislaine Maxwell Defend11111 for the Southern District of New York ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ il Action l\o. 15-CV-07433-RWS SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORIV[A TlON, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISF:S IN A CIVIL ACTION JEAN LUC BRUNEL, c/o Joe Titone, 621 South East 5th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (Nalit<' u,( p er,,011 tu 1•-/1(1//J /h;s subpoena is directed} ,6 Production: YOt; ARE CO.MMANDED to produce at the time, date, a11d place set forth below the following doc11mcnls, elec tTOnil.:ally stored informatfon, or objects. and to permit inspection, copying, resting, or ~ainpling ofihc material: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A Place: Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Date and Time: 03/01/2016 9:00 am □ Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED lo permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or control led by you at the l ime, date, and location set forth below. so Lhal lhc ,·cquesling party rnay inspect, measure, survey, photograph, tesr, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. Place: I DBtc and r;.,,c· lhe fi.)llowing provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 <1 re attached - Rule 45(c), relat ing to the place of compl iance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as n person subjcc1 10 a subpocmt; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing, so. Date: 02/16/2016 CT.ERK OF COUJ?T OR Signoture vf Cl,•rk or Dep111y C/1:rk The name, address. e-mai l address, and tclcphon<.: number of the ati orney represeming (namr of par{J'J Virginia Giuffre , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Sigrid S Mccawley, BSF, LLP, 401 E Las Olas Blvd, #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)356-0011 smccawley@bsfllp.com Notice lo lhe person who issues or requests this subpoena lf this subpoena commands t he production of ciocu111c11 ts, .:leclronical ly srored information. or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each pa11y in th is case before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed_ R. Civ. P. 45(:=i)(4). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 24 ,\{) ){SB (Rev 0~/14) Subpoena 1c) P1,)uu~c Dm:u11u:r1bi. l11formaIiun, ur Oh_1cct; or to Permit Inspection 01 Premises in a Ci~il Aclion (Page 2} Civil Action '\Jo. 15-CV-07433-RWS PROOF OF SERVICE (This section slzo11ld 110( be filed with the court ,mies.\· required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) 1 received this subpoena for (name ,?fi11divid11al and tit!.:. ifan.~} on rdme) 0 I e;erved the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: Oil (date,1 ; or 0 1 returned the subpoena uncxccutcd bccau-;c: Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness the fees for one day's mtendance. and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ My fees are$ frlr travel and $ fr1r services, for a tota 1 of$ 0.00 I declare under penalty ofpe1jury that this information is true. Date: s,, J-V('j' 's sig11nture !'rimed 11(1me and 1i1/e Server .1· address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 24 AO l\8B (Re, 02/1 -1) S11bpocna L11 Prntluee Dol'.Ullll'rll:>. lr1fom11<Hon, ,,r Ot;.y.:ct:; ,i: t11 l'.:rmu lnsp,cuon or Premises in:, Ci, II /wtiOn(l'agc 3! Federal Ruic of Civil Prncedurt! 45 (c)i (d), (e), and (g) (Efft'ctivt' )2/1/13) (cJ Plu~c ofCumpliancc, \1) Fl,r a 7i'ial, HeJ:ring, r>r Depnsitiou, A suhpoen:t m,9y c,,11111w11t.l a per.son to attend a trial, hearing. nr depo~ition ,inly a, follows. (1\} within I 00 mile~ of\\ h<:'r'-' ll;e J)C'NJ11 rl·~idc~. i~ t:mplu:·i.:<l. ur r~gulnrl) lrnns11cts bu~im•,~ in pcr, un: ur (II) within the ~Lute where the pcrso:1 resides, is cmpl,1yrd, m !'CJ!ulnrly lnmsacts b11 s 1n~s, m rerson. iflhe rcrs,)11 (i) is a pa1·y or n pt1rl) ·~ officer: or (ii) i, commandt:tl tu ,1ttt•ml a lri,1! mid would 11ot int·11r ~utlswntrnl t'l\J)Cll;C. (2) Fnr Orlre.r f)i~('o1wy . . -\ subpoenn may comm.Ul(I. {. \J producti\/11 of docinm:nl~. i.:k\.'tronically stored infonnotion. or t,mgibk thing:; ,it a place within I UU miles of where the pcr,nn rc~ides. is cm:iloycd, or rc_rmlnrly tran~act, h11sinc~~ in rcr,()n: ,1t1rl rB) in>specti(ln ol'p1.:'.1niocs at the premise, lo be i11spectc<l. (di Protecting a l'ct'SQn Subject to a Subpoena; Enl"orccmcnt. (I) A 1•(1it/i11g Undue 811rde11 or £.\Jlt!ll.1e: S1111ctio11s. A p:1r10 ,,r ,1l t,11111.') re,pm~siblc fur js,,t1illl;( amJ serving a ,wbpm:rm rnu,t take n::1sum1bk ~,cps lu ~,,uid impu~ing undue bLirdcn or cxpcmc on a person rnh,1cct w 1l1e subpocna. The court lor the di,mict whe~ cnmpli~nce i., requi-rd mu,1 enforce thi, <lul)• nnd impo~e on npprnprintc ~anction- \"hich m, )' include Ima e<1mi11g, .,nd rcn~on:i'1le a1to111ey·~ lec:-1---1.)n n pnnr or m1rn11e) \\Ii., fail•: f() t.!Mllply (2) Comm1111d f() Pmd1u:I! Maliirir,/.~ or l'ermit /11spectio11. (A) A,f'/peu/'cmCt' !\'of Rel/I/Ired. A persM C1)mm~1dcd 10 produce doc11111~11ts. clcctronk~tly stored i11fom1:ttio11, or tangible thi11gs, or tv penniL !he 111specti,111 of prt"111i~t:S. ll~cd 11ol nppt:ur i11 p~r~\lll m l11c.: plu\'~ of prnJm·tion <n· inspt·r.:tlon unless also c0mnrn11<kd to appear [or a dcpos1lion. h-:,i l'i11g . or mal. (fl) Olyeoi1111 ,. I\ person w111m~mlecl to produce documt•nts ot L111giblt.' thing, 01 lo rernril i11spection lllll)o< :;.:r,t: 011 lht! p,irly or ullom<.:) lks1gnu'.ed i11 Lilt· st1bptK.·nu :i writ(i.:n objection Lo in~pt:ctmg, copy111g, testing. or ~11111pling any or 1111 or1hc rnatc>rial~ or to h1,pc~ting the prcmisc,-:ir to r,nXlucing ckctr<lnically ~tor::d information in ,h.: form or rorm, rc,1ucs1t.:d. 'I he nhjecli<ln 1111st he served before tlw earlic~r of the time ,pecilicJ fr.u· 1:n111pliance ur I I d<1ys after the s1,bpueM is sel\cd 1r Jll objt'clil111 i, 111udt'. (hL· fc11!0" lng rnlo:~ wppl.)': (i) AL any time. on nmicc co the rnmm:rndcd per son. the scrvirig pmty mny move the court for· 1he di~trict where wmpliancc i, req11ired f<.1r ,111 or,lcr c;,,rnpelling protluctivn or inspection. (ii) Tli~sc .t\.'L~ 111uy bi.: rc4uircd uni} 11, dirc\.'tcd m th~ order. i111d the on.l~r mt1sl pnncct ,i p,:r~on who 1s neither a puiiy nor u pw,y"s ollk cl' from s;gnilicm\t expc11~e r~•ailtfng from C1>111pli~11ce. (3) Q11uslti11g or Mot!ijj•i11g t1 SubpOt'll(I, (A) H he11 Reqi,ire.d. On timely motion. the C(>tllt for the district 11 hs:rc c,,:nplianc.: 1s required 11111st qu:ish or mooify :i suhpocna that: (i} fail, 1.0 nllo,1 ~ r<::i1$0trnble lime 10 eo111ply: (ii) rcq(tircs u pc1-so1t lo comply beyond thi.: g,.,.1.;.n1phica· li111it~ sp.:cificd i.n Ruk 45(c); (iii) 1'Cquirc~ di~cln~11rc ol'privilegcd or olher pr,>t~clcd mnttcr, j f 1111 cx.:cprinn or waiver ~rplic;:s, or (i,) SL1!Jj1cct:, ;1 pcr,on to umh1•: burden. \B) I/hen f'ermirted. '1'1) prntecl a Jll:!l'.~()11 subject I,) rir nllecterl hy ,1 ;ubpm:na. tltc:: c,iun !i\l' ll1c clist,·icl "hen: co11111li,H1.,e i, r~qu,red m:1:-,. 011 million. q11~sh or modi')· the ,l1bp11e11n 1 I' ii requires· (i) dis,losi1 1~ a lJ'Udc" ,cud ur olhc"r w11;idt11tial rc,e~r~h. c.lt:wlop1rn:nl. or t·ornmcr~inl i11fo1m::nion; or (ii) di.~clo,ing ~n u11rctaincrl c,pcrt•~ opinion or inro1111aLinn 1hat doc~ nol ilt,1•1·ilx' spc,:ifit' OCl't1rru1ecs in dispute a11d result, from lhe r.-xper1·~ stud) tlit1t \\'<ls 1101 rcque,ll'd l;iy 11 pafly. (C) Speq/ying Conditill11s a.r w, ,Urernali\11!. ln the clrcumsluncL:~ 1.li.:scnbcd in llulc: -'5(d)(3)(13\, lhi! court 111ay. instead ot quashing or modityini a subpoena. ordc1· arpcarJncc or prnJuctio11 under spcci1icd conditions if'the ,crving prn1y: (i) 51,ows o , uhst;rntlal 11ecd frl! the testimony nr 1110tcriol thai t:annot be othrrwi, c 111er wiihout uut.lu.: hardship: um! (ii) cn~urc, that lhc ~ubpocnacd p.::r,on will be 1·cnsonably co111pcnsatcd. (<') nutiN, in Rc~potaling ton Suhpot,'un. (I) Prmfl1ci11g Docu111e11ts or l::"fectronic(ll/y Smretl lnfomwtion. ·1 hesc procedures apply to prnduci11g dm:uments nr electronicall) Mored i11tlmnatio11: (r\) {Joc 1111n·r1/.,. A ~K.·rsun re,pontling LV LI ~ubpocn~ 1!1 prod11c,: docume11t:, nn,,t prod11cc: tht.:m ~, 1hcy nrc kq11 ill lhc ordin:,ry coun,c ol bt1;incs~ or must 11rganizc and label them to cnt~·csponcl to the catej!one, fr, the demand. ( ll) Form (rw l'rml11cmg l:le,·,romcalli- Stored l1?(11rmmion ,~'r,1 Speciji,•d !fa subpo~1rn docs not ,p<!df) ,i form for 111od11ci11g elecmu1ically sta, cJ i111"unn~liou. the per~o11 ,~:,ponding 111u~l pmducc it in u form 01· fom1, in l\"hich it is ordimmly m.1i11Luincd or in a rcason:1bly usabk: form or l'orms. (C) l,l ~t1J!·o11ir 11llv Srnri>,/ /Jrji,rnw1,n11 l'rodur ,,d !rr 011/y 011,, Form. The pc:r~on rospo11ding neeu not prod11ee the sa111e electronical ly stored informmion in mnr~ th,,n 0I1e lorm. (I>) ln,u·,·r.1si!JI<' Ell't !,'(milv//J Swrcd 111/i.Ji'mcuion. Thi! p!!r~on n:spo11ding nc,;;d not prov id'° discovc1y of dcctronicully ~torcd mfonnittion li·om ,out·ct:s thul 1he person identi fie., a, 1101 rcasonallly accessible bcc:iuse uf'1111d11~ hurden or ('OSI. Or: motion to o)mpel .Jiscowry or for~ prorc~tivc￾order, the pet~on respondini must show that lhc information i,; 1101 rl·t1~1,md1lv accc::,,ibk \iccuu~c oi mnluc burden or ~o,l. I f"l11ut ~h\l\~in11. i~ made. Lhc·court rn:1y nont0thckss order discovery from such sources 1fthc rtquc~ting p,u1~ ,;h11ws good c,11 1,c, coMiclcring the limit,ninn, ,)l"Ruk 16(b)/2)(C>. 'l'he rour1 ma) spet·ify co11dition~ lor the disc<JWr)·. (2) Cf(limin.r.: PrMlef{e <Jr Protection. (A) /,;(,mumirm Wit/,11eld. A person wit.hholdin)! ~uhr>oe11aed inli,nnution 1111rb· a ,:la:m 1hat Ii~ pm ikged or subject to pro1,:_,1io11 ~~ rri.1l -prep.1rarim1 111,1lcri,;I rnttSI: (i) t:/\prc"~, ly m;1kc Ills;: clui111: und (ii) dcsL:ribc the nallircufthc 11irllhcld d,)c11111c11LS. communications. tlr t,mg iblc lh111g.s in a m;mncr th.11, wirho,n reveal in;; i11 fomrn1i1in it~cll p,·i,,ile~ed oT prote-cte,:I. ,, ill enabk 1he p.i11ii:.-s lo :)~sess 1hr ch1im. (BJ ht/immi/iu11 Produ,·rd. Jr infonnution pn>Juccd in rt·spo11~c t.() ,1 $libpocnl1 i~ su~icct to a claim ofpnvilcgc or of protection as 11•1al-prep:lr!ltin11111a1eri;1l. 11le p::rwn 111~kl11g the cl11i111 111ay notify any 1>a11y 1h,1I r1c.:~ivr.tl tht: i11lom1:1tion of the daim and 1he b:1sis lor it. A 'kr bei111~ 11ati lied. a p.1rly must prompt I) rctu111. s~qucstcr. or ,;kslrn) the spccitied i11 l"m11alion uml m1y c11pic~ it ha:,: rnu,l not use or dl~dv,<: !he infonnution 1m til llli: rlaim i~ rcsol\'cd: lllttst t:ikc reasonable steps to retrieve the int<\l'matirn1 1f1he pJrl} /listlnsed i1 helnrc hcing. 11otiiie1I: and mny promptly 1m •,~ent the infnl'ln:11io111mdn .si:ttl lo the t:Ol111 for the <lis1rie1 whtre L'Ornpli;111c-c i, required f1H a Jdcm1i1wtirn, vrthc ch1i111. ·1 h~ pt.'1-:.u11 whu prvduced (ILL! intimnul1qn niu~l prc~cr\'C lh: inr(11 1nt1tion Lm!il the elt1im i~ resolved. (J?) ('011l<'lll[ll. The CUlll'l lur lli~ di~tt ict wl·~n: L'()lllp:imll't! i~ l"t'<.jUin:d- llnU :1ls11. urtt:1 <1 nwtion i~ lnm,fi:ITl'd. llic 1s:-iuing court- may hold in conli.:mpl a p~rson whu. nm'ing been sen cJ, wils 11 ithoul adcqmuc c:,cusc 10 obey i./-,c ~ubpocna or an onkr relaled to ii. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 24 TO: JEA.~ LUC BRUNEL EXIHBIT A DEFINITIONS Wherever they hereafter appear lhe following words and phrases have the following meanings: I. "Agent" shall mean any agent. employee, officer, director, attorney, independent contractor or any other person acting, or purporting to act, at the discretion of or on behalf of another. 2. "Con-espondence" or "communication'' shall mean all ·written or verbal communicalions, by any and all methods_, including without limitation, letters, memoranda, and/or electronic mail, by which information, in whatever form, is stored, transmitted or received: and, includes every manner or means of disclosuTe, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of i11formation whether ornlly or by document or otherwise, face-to-face, by telephone, telecopies, e-mail, text, modem transmission, computer generated message, mail, personal delivery or otherwise. 3. "Defendant" shall mean the ddendant Ghislaine Maxwell and her employees, representatives or agenls. 4. "Document" shall mean all v.:rit:ten and graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, and each and every thing from which information can be processed, transcribed, transmitted, restored, recorded, or memoriali zed in any way, by any means, regardless of technology or form. Tt includes, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, notations, diaries, papers, books, accow1ts, newsJ)aper and magazine articles, advertisements, photographs, videos, notebooks, ledgers, letters, telegrams, cables, telex messages, facsimiles, contracts, offers, agreements, reports, objects, tangible things, work papers, transcripts, minutes, rep011.s nnd recordings of telephone or other conversations or communications, or of interview-s Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 24 TO: .JEAN LUC BRU~EL EXHIBIT A or conferences, or of other meetings, occurrences or transactions, affidavits, statements, summaries, opinions, tests, experiments, analysis. evaluations, journals, balance sheets, income statements, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, lists, tabulations, sound. recordings, data prot:essing input or output, microfilms, film negatives, film slides, memory sticks, checks, statements, receipts, summaries, computer printouts, computer programs, lext messages, e-mails, information kept in computer hard drives, other computer drives of any kind, computer tape back-up, CD-ROM. other computer disks of any kind, teletypes, lelecopies, invoi(.:es, worksheets, printed matter of every kind and description, graphic and oral records and representations of any kind, and electronic "writings'' and ·'recordings" as set fo11h in the Federal Rules of Evidence, including but not limited to, originals or copic;s where originals are not available. i\ny document -with any marks such as initials, comments or notations of any kind of not deemed to be identical with one without such marks and is produced as a separate document. Where there is any question about whether a tangible item otherwise described in these requests falls within the definition of "document" such tangible item shall be produced. 5. "Employee·· includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal. 6. "Including'' means including ·without limitations. 7. "Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein. 8. c'Ghislaine Maxwell " includes Ghislaine Maxwell and any entities owned or controlled by Ghislaine Max\.vell, any employee, agt:nt, attorney, consultant, or representative of Ghislaine Maxwell. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 24 TO: ,JEAN LUC BRL'NEL EXHIBIT A 9. ·'Person(s)'' indudes natural persons, prop1ietorc;hips, governmental agencies, corporations, partnerships, trusts, joint ventures. groups, associations, organi7,ations or any other legal or business entity. 10. "You" or "Your'' hereinafler means Jean Luc Brunel and any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of Jean Luc Brunel. INSTR lJCTTONS 1, Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made at the oflict:.s of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, :-Jew York. 2. Unless indicated otherwise, the Relevant Period for this Request is from 1996 lo the present. A Document should be considered to be within the relevant time frame if it rdt:.rn or relates to communications, meetings or orher events or documents that occurred or were c.:reatec.l within that time frame, regardless of the date of creation of the responsive Document. 3. This Request calls for the production of' all responsive Documents in your possession, custody or control without regard lo the physical location of such documents. 4. lf any Document requested was in your possession or control. but is no longer in its possession or control, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for such disposition, and the date or such disposi Lion. 5. for the purposes or reading, interpreting, or construing the scope of these req uests, the terms used shall be given their most expansive and incJusive interpretation. This includes, withom limitation the following: a) Wherever appropriate herein, the singular form of a word shall be interpreted as plural and vice ver.~a. b) "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring withi11 the scope hereof any Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 24 TO: .TRAN LUC BRUNEL EXHIBIT A information (as defined herein) which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope of this disrnvery request. c) "Any'' shall be understood to include and encompass "all" and vice versa. d) Wherever appropriate herein, tl1e masculine form of a word shall be interpreted as feminine and vi<.:e versa. e) "Includi_ng" shall mean "including without Limitation." 6. If you are unable to answer or respond fully to any document request, answer or respond to the extent possible and specify the reasons for your inability to answer or respond in full. ff the recipient has no documents responsive to a particular Request, the recipient shall so stale. 7. Unless instrncted otherwise, each Request shall be constrned indepcnde11tly and not by reference to any other Request for the purpose of limitation. 8. The words "relate." "relating," ' 1 relates," or any other derivative thereof, as used herein includes concerning, relerring to, responding to, relating to, penaining to, connected with, comprising, mcrnoriali2ing, evidencing, commenting on, regarding, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing or constituting. 9. "Identify" means, with respect to any ''person," or any reference to tbe ''identjty" of any '·person," to provide the name, home address, telephone number, business name, business address, business telephone number and a description of each such person's connection \Vi th the events in question. l 0. "ldentify" mcaus. with respe<.:t lo any "document," or any reference to stating the " identification" of any ''document," provide the title and dale of each such document, the name and address of the party or parties responsible for the preparation of each such document, the name and address of the party who requested or required the preparation and on whose be.half it Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 24 TO: JEAN LUC BRUNF.L RXffiBJT A was prepared, the name and address of the recipient or recipients to each such document and the present location of any and all copies of each such document, and the names and addresses of all persons who have custody or control of each such document or copies thereof. 11. In producing Documents, if the original of any Documenl cannot be localed, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be lcgibk and bound or stapled in the same manner as the 01iginal. 12. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate docw11ent. 13. If any requested Documenl cannot be produced in full, produce the Document to the extent possible, specilying i;:ach reason for your inability to produce the remainder of the Document stating whatever information, knowledge or belief ·which you have concerning the portion not produced. 14. If any Document requested was at any one time in existence but arc no longer in exislence, then so state, specifying for each Document (a) the t)1Je of document; (b) the types of infr.mnation contained thereon; (c) the date upon which it ceased to exist; (d) the circumstances under which it ceased to exist; (e) the identity of all person having knowledge of the circumstances under which it ceased to i;:xisl; and (I) the identity of all persons having knowledge or who had knowledge of the contents thereof and each individual's address. 15. All Documrnl.s shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by you in the ordinary course of business. 16. You are requesle<l lo produce all drafts and notes, whether typed, handwritten or otherwise, made or prepared in connection v-:ith the requested Documents, ·whether or not used. 17. Documents attached to each other shall not be separated. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 24 TO: .JEAN LL'C BRUNEL EXHIBIT A 18. Documents shall be prodL1ced in such fashion as to identify the department, branch or office in whose possession Lhey were located and, where applicahle, the natural person in v11hose possession they were found, and business address of each Document's custodian(s). l9. 1f any Documem responsive to the request is withheld, in all or part, based upon any claim of privilege or prolection, ·whether based on statute or otherwise, stare separately for each Document, i_n addition to any other information requested: (a) the specific request ·which calls for the production; (b) the nature of the privilege claimed; ( c) its date; ( d) the name and address or each author; (e) the name and address of each of the addresses and/or individual lo ,.vhom the Document was distributed, if any: (:f) the title (or position) of its author; (g) type of rnngible object, e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, charl, report, recording, disk, etc.; (h) its title and subject matter (vvithollt revealing the information as to which the privilege is claimed); (i) -vvith sufficient specificity to permit the Court to make foll determination as to whether the claim of privilege is valid, each and every fact or basis on which you claim such privilege; and (j) whether the document contained an attachment and to the extent you are claiming a privilege as to the attachment, a separate log entry addressing that privilege claim. 20. If any Document requested herein is withheld, in all or part, based on a claim lhat such Document constitutes attorney work product, provide all of the information <lesc:ribed in Instruction No. 19 and also identify the I itigation in connection with which Lhe Document and the information it contains \1-,.as ohtained mid/or prepared. 21. Plaintiff does not seek and docs not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. 22. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any furthe r information, Documents, things, or information Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 24 TO: JEAN LUC BRUNEL EXHIBIT A responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses ,md producing such additional Documents to Plaintiff. DOCUMENTS TO DE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBPOENA 1. All video 1apes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides, CD's, or any other print or electronic media laken that relate to: (I) Alan Dershowitz; (2) Virginia Roberts; (3) Alan Dcrsbow:itz in Lhe presence of Virginia Roberts; and (4) Alan Dershowitz in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein am.I and/or any female agent or employee of Jeffrey Epstein. 2. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides, CD's, or any other prinl or electronic media taken 1hat relate to: (I) Ghislai:ne Mmnvell; (2) Ghislaine Maxwell in the presence of Virginia Robe11s; (3) Ghislaine ~faxwell in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and and/or any female agent or employee of Jeffrey Epstein; and (4) Ghislaine Maxwell in the 11resence of any female tmder the age of eighleen (18) years old. 3. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides, CD's, or any other print or ekctronic media taken that relate to: (1) Jeffrey Epstein; (2) .Jeffrey Epstein in the presence ol'Virginia Roberts; and (3) Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of any female under the age of eighteen (18) years old. 4. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives, film slides, CD's, or any other print or electronic media taken that relates to Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen, or Nadia Marcinkova. 5. All documents that relate to: (1) Alan DcrshO\•Vitz; (2) Virginia Roberts; (3) Alan Dershowitz in tl1e presence of Virginia Roberts; and (4) Alan Dershowitz in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein and/or any female agent or employee of Jeffrey Epstein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 24 6. All documents relating to models or females thar you employed who also worked for or interacted with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine :\1axwe11. 7. All documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein from 1996 - present. 8. All documents relating to Ghislaine Manvell from 1996- present. 9. All documents relating to communications with any of the folio-wing indivi<luahi from 1999 - present: Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. 10. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any olher print or electronic media taken at a time when you were vvith Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. 11. J\11 video tapes, audio tapes, photographs or any olher print or electronic media taken ar a time when you were at~ or nearby, Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwelrs residences, hotel moms/suites, automobiles, or aircraft. 11. All documents rdaling to your travel from the period of 1996 - 2008, when that travel ,:vas either with Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, or to mee1 Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited m comrnei-cial tlighrn, helicopters, passport records, records indkating passengers traveling with you, hotel records, and credit card receipts. 12. All documents relating to payments made from Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or any related entity to you from 1996 -present. 13. All documents i-elating to or describing any work you performed with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or any affiliated entity from 1996 -2008. 14. All documents relating to any credit cards used that ,;i,,,ere paid for by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or any related entity from 1996 - present. 15. Al I telephone records associated with you, including cell phone records, from 1996 - present, that show any communications with either Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 24 16. All documents relating to calendars, SL:hedules or appointments for you from 1996 - 2008 that relate to visits with, or communications wilh, either Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine :.1axwe 11. 17. All documents identifying any individuals to whom Virginia Robe1is prnvided a massage. 18. All documents relating to any employee Jists or records associated with you, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine :--.1axwell. or any related entity. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 24 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEAN LUC BRUNEL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to the subpoena we served counsel, the undersigned counsel provides this Notice of Taking the Videotaped Deposition of the below￾named individual on the date and hour indicated. NAME: Jean Luc Brunel DATE AND TIME: June 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 The videotaped deposition will be taken upon oral examination before Magna Legal Services, or any other notary public authorized by law to take depositions. The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. The video operator shall be provided by Magna Legal Services. This deposition is being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the rules of this Court. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 24 Dated: May 23, 2016. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of May, 2016, I served the attached document PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEAN LUC BRUNEL via Email to the following counsel of record. Robert Hantman, Esq. Hantman & Associates 1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 684-3933 Email: rhantman@hantmanlaw.com Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 24 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RULE 45 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM UPON JEAN LUC BRUNEL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, hereby provides Notice of Service of Subpoena upon Jean Luc Brunel. A copy of the Subpoena is attached to this Notice. Dated: May 23, 2016 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley______________ Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 24 2 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 24 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testily at a Deposition in a Civil Action To: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Virginia L. Giuffre Plaintiff v. Ghislain Maxwell Defendant for the Southern District of New York E] ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07 433 SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION Jean Luc Brunel, c/o Robert Hantman, Esq., Hantman & Associates 1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036 (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) ,I Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at tlte time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: ----~Gi-es Schiller & Flexner, LL~~- ------- - --.--------- - - - ---- --~ Place: 575 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor Date and Time: New York, NY 10022; 954-365-0011 June 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The deposition will be recorded by this method: _s_t_e_n_og_r_a_p_h_y_a_n_d_v_id_e_o_g_ra_p_h_Y ___________ _ 0 Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: The following provisions offed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached - Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. Date: CLERK OF COURT OR Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) _ Virgina Giuff~ Sigrid S. Mccawley, BSF, LLP , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: 401 E. Las Dias Blvd., Suite 12 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; 954-365-0011; smccawley@bsfllp.com Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 24 AO SSA (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433 PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) on (date) 0 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: on (date) 0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ; or Uniess the subpoena was issued on behaif of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ My fees are$ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Server's signature Printed name and title Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 24 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (c) Place of Compliance. (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within l 00 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within l 00 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (t) A1·oiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps :o avoid imposing undue burden or expcJ1se on a µe,son subjed to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction-which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees---on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (2) Commuml to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. (B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises-or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compel] ing production or inspection. (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) fflhen Required. On timely motion, the comt for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affoctcd by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, 011 motion, quash or modify the subpoena ifit requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party. (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. tn the circumstances described in Rule 45( d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. (e) Duties in Responding to a S11bpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information: (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpo~11a dot:s not specify a form for producing eiectronicaily stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored infonnation in more than one form. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery. (2) Cluiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim. (B) Information Produced. lf information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. (g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required-and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court-may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it. For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 24 From: Brad Edwards To: Laura Menninger; Jeff Pagliuca Cc: Smccawley@BSFLLP.com; cassellp@law.utah.edu; mschultz@BSFLLP.com Subject: Depositions next week Date: Thursday, June 02, 2016 9:23:30 AM We got an email yesterday from Mr. Brunel's attorney saying he needs to reschedule. I believe he is trying to get us new dates today or tomorrow. We got a similar email from Mr. Fontanella's lawyer yesterday saying that he is also not available next week. His email said he is available the week of the 27th. I told him I would call him to coordinate a new date once I had spoken with you. I have not heard from anyone representing yet. I was hoping you could tell me whether she is represented and whether next week works for her or will also need resetting. As of right now, the only confirmed depo for next week is that of Mr. Rizzo. Laura, can you talk later this afternoon to see what we can do about a deposition schedule that makes sense for everyone going forward? I figure Jeff will be flying. If we don't connect today then I will try to make time to talk with him after the deposition tomorrow. I understand that the hearing did not go forward this morning which is unfortunate as it gives us a little guidance where the court stands on the deposition issues. Maybe you and I can talk and try to figure out some plan that works in the meantime. Brad Sent from my iPhone Jane Doe 2 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-31 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 24 EXHIBIT L Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 27 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page2) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless re I;:2e_:_e • V~-~ --~ __ 1J;_poena for (name of individual and title, if any) on (date) _ (1J; __ . _ _ .··-· :··. . ..... ,. 0 l returned the subpoena unexecuted because: Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one ofits officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ . ?Sp', ;?- _cg My fees are$ for travel and$ for services, for a total of$ 0.00 I', • ._. ~ • •• ••••• • • •. ,,~_... ',,..,.,.,,,,,,' , ,.. •>• /'• I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Sen,er's sfg11utur,, :)::,~~)~~---- ~c?~ ». .'y&t/~ Printed name and title Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 27 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RULE 45 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM UPON PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, hereby provides Notice of Service of Subpoena upon A copy of the Subpoena is attached to this Notice as Exhibit A. Dated: May 16, 2016 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Jane Doe 2 --- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 27 2 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 27 Jane Doe 2 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action To: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Virginia L. Giuffre Plaintiff V. Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant for the Southern District ofN ew York ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) ~ Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: Place: Date and Time: 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 06/04/2016 9:00 am The deposition will be recorded by this method: Videography and Stenography ,I Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: Please see attached Schedule A. The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached-Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. Date: 05/13/2016 CLERK OF COURT OR Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) . Virginia Giuffre ___________________________ , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Sigrid Mccawley, Esq. of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Ft. Lauderdale , FL 33301 , Tel: (954) 356 0011 ; smccawley@bsfllp.com Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 27 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) on (date) 0 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: on (date) 0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ; or Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ My fees are$ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Server's signature Printed name and title Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc. : Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 27 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (c) Place of Compliance. (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expcns.;. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within IOO miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction-which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documt:nts, electronically stored information, or tangihle things, or to p~rmit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. (B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises--or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested . The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) Al any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection. (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. (3) Q11"shi11g or Modifying II Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, ifno exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party. (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electro11ically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored in formation: (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. lf a subpoena does not specify~ form.. .for producing electronically storerl information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. (g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required-and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court-may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it. For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 27 Jane Doe 2 EXHIBIT A DEFINITIONS Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following meanings: 1. "Agent" shall mean any agent, employee, officer, director, attorney, independent contractor or any other person acting, or purporting to act, at the discretion of or on behalf of another. 2. "Correspondence" or "communication" shall mean all written or verbal communications, by any and all methods, including without limitation, letters, memoranda, and/or electronic mail, by which information, in whatever form, is stored, transmitted or received; and, includes every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or otherwise, face-to-face, by telephone, telecopies, e-mail, text, modern transmission, computer generated message, mail, personal delivery or otherwise. 3. "Document" shall mean all written and graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, and each and every thing from which information can be processed, transcribed, transmitted, restored, recorded, or memorialized in any way, by any means, regardless of technology or form. It includes, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, notations, diaries, papers, books, accounts, newspaper and magazine articles, advertisements, photographs, videos, notebooks, ledgers, letters, telegrams, cables, telex messages, facsimiles, contracts, offers, agreements, reports, objects, tangible things, work papers, transcripts, minutes, reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations or communications, or of interviews 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 27 or conferences, or of other meetings, occurrences or transactions, affidavits, statements, summaries, opinions, tests, experiments, analysis, evaluations, journals, balance sheets, income statements, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, lists, tabulations, sound recordings, data processing input or output, microfilms, checks, statements, receipts, summaries, computer printouts, computer programs, text messages, e-mails, information kept in computer hard drives, other computer drives of any kind, computer tape back-up, CD-ROM, other computer disks of any kind, teletypes, telecopies, invoices, worksheets, printed matter of every kind and description, graphic and oral records and representations of any kind, and electronic "writings" and "recordings" as set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence, including but not limited to, originals or copies where originals are not available. Any document with any marks such as initials, comments or notations of any kind of not deemed to be identical with one without such marks and is produced as a separate document. Where there is any question about whether a tangible item otherwise described in these requests falls within the definition of "document" such tangible item shall be produced. 4. "Employee" includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal. 5. "Including" means including without limitations. 6. "Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein. 7. "You" or "Your" hereinafter means David Rodgers ( a/k/a Dave Rodgers) and any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of David Rodgers (a/k/a Dave Rodgers). 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 27 INSTRUCTIONS 1. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33301, no later than five (5) days before the date noticed for your deposition, or, if an alternate date is agreed upon, no later than five (5) days before the agreed-upon date. 2. Unless indicated otherwise, the Relevant Period for this Request is from 1996 to the present. A Document should be considered to be within the relevant time frame if it refers or relates to communications, meetings or other events or documents that occurred or were created within that time frame, regardless of the date of creation of the responsive Document. 3. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. 4. If any Document requested was in your possession or control, but is no longer in its possession or control, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for such disposition, and the date of such disposition. 5. For the purposes of reading, interpreting, or construing the scope of these requests, the terms used shall be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation. This includes, without limitation the following: a) Wherever appropriate herein, the singular form of a word shall be interpreted as plural and vice versa. b) "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any information (as defined herein) which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope of this discovery request. c) "Any" shall be understood to include and encompass "all" and vice versa. d) Wherever appropriate herein, the masculine form of a word shall be interpreted as feminine and vice versa. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 27 e) "Including" shall mean "including without limitation." 6. If you are unable to answer or respond fully to any document request, answer or respond to the extent possible and specify the reasons for your inability to answer or respond in full. If the recipient has no documents responsive to a particular Request, the recipient shall so state. 7. Unless instructed otherwise, each Request shall be construed independently and not by reference to any other Request for the purpose of limitation. 8. The words "relate," "relating," "relates," or any other derivative thereof, as used herein includes concerning, referring to, responding to, relating to, pertaining to, connected with, comprising, memorializing, evidencing, commenting on, regarding, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing or constituting. 9. "Identify" means, with respect to any "person," or any reference to the "identity" of any "person," to provide the name, home address, telephone number, business name, business address, business telephone number and a description of each such person's connection with the events in question. 10. "Identify" means, with respect to any "document," or any reference to stating the "identification" of any "document," provide the title and date of each such document, the name and address of the party or parties responsible for the preparation of each such document, the name and address of the party who requested or required the preparation and on whose behalf it was prepared, the name and address of the recipient or recipients to each such document and the present location of any and all copies of each such document, and the names and addresses of all persons who have custody or control of each such document or copies thereof. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 27 J 1. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. 12. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. 13. If any requested Document cannot be produced in full, produce the Document to the extent possible, specifying each reason for your inability to produce the remainder of the Document stating whatever information, knowledge or belief which you have concerning the portion not produced. 14. If any Document requested was at any one time in existence but are no longer in existence, then so state, specifying for each Document (a) the type of document; (b) the types of information contained thereon; ( c) the date upon which it ceased to exist; ( d) the circumstances under which it ceased to exist; ( e) the identity of all person having knowledge of the circumstances under which it ceased to exist; and (f) the identity of all persons having knowledge or who had knowledge of the contents thereof and each individual's address. 15. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by you in the ordinary course of business. 16. You are requested to produce all drafts and notes, whether typed, handwritten or otherwise, made or prepared in connection with the requested Documents, whether or not used. 17. Documents attached to each other shall not be separated. 18. Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the department, branch or office in whose possession they were located and, where applicable, the natural person in whose possession they were found, and business address of each Document's custodian(s). 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 27 19. If any Document responsive to the request is withheld, in all or part, based upon any claim of privilege or protection, whether based on statute or otherwise, state separately for each Document, in addition to any other information requested: (a) the specific request which calls for the production; (b) the nature of the privilege claimed; ( c) its date; ( d) the name and address of each author; (e) the name and address of each of the addresses and/or individual to whom the Document was distributed, if any; (f) the title ( or position) of its author; (g) type of tangible object, e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, report, recording, disk, etc.; (h) its title and subject matter (without revealing the information as to which the privilege is claimed); (i) with sufficient specificity to permit the Court to make full determination as to whether the claim of privilege is valid, each and every fact or basis on which you claim such privilege; and G) whether the document contained an attachment and to the extent you are claiming a privilege as to the attachment, a separate log entry addressing that privilege claim. 20. If any Document requested herein is withheld, in all or part, based on a claim that such Document constitutes attorney work product, provide all of the information described in Instruction No. 19 and also identify the litigation in connection with which the Document and the information it contains was obtained and/or prepared. 21. Plaintiff does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. 22. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Plaintiff. 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 27 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBPOENA 1. All documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. 2. All documents relating to Ghislaine Maxwell. 3. All documents related to Sarah Ke11en, a/k/a Sarah Vickers, a/k/a Sara Kensington. 4. All documents related to Nadia Marcinkova, a/k/a Nadia Marcinko. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 27 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RULE 45 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM UPON JOE RECAREY PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, hereby provides Notice of Service of Subpoena upon Joe Recarey. A copy of the Subpoena is attached to this Notice as Exhibit A. Dated: May 17, 2016 By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 27 2 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52021 1 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 27 AO SSA (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action To: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Virginia L. Giuffre Plaintiff V. Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant for the Southern District of New York ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION Joe Recarey (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) g{ Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment: Place: Date and Time: 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 06/21/2016 9:00 am The deposition will be recorded by this method: Videography and Stenography r/ Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: Please see attached Schedule A. The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached - Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. Date: 05/13/2016 CLERK.OF COURT OR Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Virginia Giuffre __ , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Sigrid Mccawley, Esq. of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, Tel: (954) 356 0011; smccawley@bsfllf).com Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 27 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2) Civil Action No. 15-cv-07433-RWS PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) T received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) on (date) 0 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows: on (date) 0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ; or Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, l have also tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ My fees are$ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Server's signature Printed name and title Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 27 AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (c) Place of Compliance. (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or (R) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party's officer; or (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense. (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command: (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within I 00 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or E:,.pense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction-which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. (B) Objections. A person commanded to prod11ce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises-or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection. (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party 's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance. (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, ifno exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party. (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. ln the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party: (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information: (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand. (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena does net specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. lfthat showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim. (B) Information Produced If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the cl aim is resolved. (g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required-and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court-may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it. I For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 27 To: Joe Recarey EXHIBIT A DEFINITIONS Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following meanmgs: 1. "Agent" shall mean any agent, employee, officer, director, attorney, independent contractor or any other person acting, or purporting to act, at the discretion of or on behalf of another. 2. "Correspondence" or "communication" shall mean all written or verbal communications, by any and all methods, including without limitation, letters, memoranda, and/or electronic mail, by which information, in whatever form, is stored, transmitted or received; and, includes every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or otherwise, face-to-face, by telephone, telecopies, e-mail, text, modem transmission, computer generated message, mail, personal delivery or otherwise. 3. "Document" shall mean all written and graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, and each and every thing from which information can be processed, transcribed, transmitted, restored, recorded, or memorialized in any way, by any means, regardless of technology or form. It includes, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, notations, diaries, papers, books, accounts, newspaper and magazine articles, advertisements, photographs, videos, notebooks, ledgers, letters, telegrams, cables, telex messages, facsimiles, contracts, offers, agreements, reports, objects, tangible things, work papers, transcripts, minutes, reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations or communications, or of interviews 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 27 or conferences, or of other meetings, occurrences or transactions, affidavits, statements, summaries, opinions, tests, experiments, analysis, evaluations, journals, balance sheets, income statements, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, lists, tabulations, sound recordings, data processing input or output, microfilms, checks, statements, receipts, summaries, computer printouts, computer programs, text messages, e-mails, information kept in computer hard drives, other computer drives of any kind, computer tape back-up, CD-ROM, other computer disks of any kind, teletypes, telecopies, invoices, worksheets, printed matter of every kind and description, graphic and oral records and representations of any kind, and electronic "writings" and "recordings" as set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence, including but not limited to, originals or copies where originals are not available. Any document with any marks such as initials, comments or notations of any kind of not deemed to be identical with one without such marks and is produced as a separate document. Where there is any question about whether a tangible item otherwise described in these requests falls within the definition of "document" such tangible item shall be produced. 4. "Employee" includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal. 5. "Including" means including without limitations. 6. "Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein. 7. "You" or "Your" hereinafter means David Rodgers ( a/k/a Dave Rodgers) and any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of David Rodgers (a/k/a Dave Rodgers). 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 27 INSTRUCTIONS 1. Production of documents and items requested herein shall be made at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33301, no later than five (5) days before the date noticed for your deposition, or, if an alternate date is agreed upon, no later than five (5) days before the agreed-upon date. 2. Unless indicated otherwise, the Relevant Period for this Request is from 1996 to the present. A Document should be considered to be within the relevant time frame if it refers or relates to communications, meetings or other events or documents that occurred or were created within that time frame, regardless of the date of creation of the responsive Document. 3. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents. 4. If any Document requested was in your possession or control, but is no longer in its possession or control, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason for such disposition, and the date of such disposition. 5. For the purposes ofreading, interpreting, or construing the scope of these requests, the terms used shall be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation. This includes, without limitation the following: a) Wherever appropriate herein, the singular form of a word shall be interpreted as plural and vice versa. b) "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any information (as defined herein) which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope of this discovery request. c) "Any" shall be understood to include and encompass "all" and vice versa. d) Wherever appropriate herein, the masculine form of a word shall be interpreted as feminine and vice versa. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 27 e) "Including" shall mean "including without limitation." 6. If you are unable to answer or respond fully to any document request, answer or respond to the extent possible and specify the reasons for your inability to answer or respond in full. If the recipient has no documents responsive to a particular Request, the recipient shall so state. 7. Unless instructed otherwise, each Request shall be construed independently and not by reference to any other Request for the purpose of limitation. 8. The words "relate," "relating," "relates," or any other derivative thereof, as used herein includes concerning, referring to, responding to, relating to, pertaining to, connected with, comprising, memorializing, evidencing, commenting on, regarding, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing or constituting. 9. "Identify" means, with respect to any "person," or any reference to the "identity" of any "person," to provide the name, home address, telephone number, business name, business address, business telephone number and a description of each such person's c01mection with the events in question. 10. "Identify" means, with respect to any "document," or any reference to stating the "identification" of any "document," provide the title and date of each such document, the name and address of the party or parties responsible for the preparation of each such document, the name and address of the party who requested or required the preparation and on whose behalf it was prepared, the name and address of the recipient or recipients to each such document and the present location of any and all copies of each such document, and the names and addresses of all persons who have custody or control of each such document or copies thereof. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 27 11 . In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. 12. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate document. 13. If any requested Document cannot be produced in full, produce the Document to the extent possible, specifying each reason for your inability to produce the remainder of the Document stating whatever information, knowledge or belief which you have concerning the portion not produced. 14. If any Document requested was at any one time in existence but are no longer in existence, then so state, specifying for each Document (a) the type of document; (b) the types of information contained thereon; ( c) the date upon which it ceased to exist; ( d) the circumstances under which it ceased to exist; ( e) the identity of all person having knowledge of the circumstances under which it ceased to exist; and (f) the identity of all persons having knowledge or who had knowledge of the contents thereof and each individual's address. 15. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by you in the ordinary course of business. 16. You are requested to produce all drafts and notes, whether typed, handwritten or otherwise, made or prepared in connection with the requested Documents, whether or not used. 17. Documents attached to each other shall not be separated. 18. Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the department, branch or office in whose possession they were located and, where applicable, the natural person in whose possession they were found, and business address of each Document's custodian(s). 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 27 19. If any Document responsive to the request is withheld, in all or part, based upon any claim of privilege or protection, whether based on statute or otherwise, state separately for each Document, in addition to any other information requested: (a) the specific request which calls for the production; (b) the nature of the privilege claimed; (c) its date; (d) the name and address of each author; (e) the name and address of each of the addresses and/or individual to whom the Document was distributed, if any; (f) the title (or position) of its author; (g) type of tangible object, e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, report, recording, disk, etc.; (h) its title and subject matter (without revealing the information as to which the privilege is claimed); (i) with suflicient specificity to permit the Court to make full determination as to whether the claim of privilege is valid, each and every fact or basis on which you claim such privilege; and G) whether the document contained an attachment and to the extent you are claiming a privilege as to the attachment, a separate log entry addressing that privilege claim. 20. If any Document requested herein is withheld, in all or part, based on a claim that such Document constitutes attorney work product, provide all of the information described in Instruction No. 19 and also identify the litigation in connection with which the Document and the information it contains was obtained and/or prepared. 21. Plaintiff does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of identical Documents. 22. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents, you obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information responsive to this Request, you are required to so state by supplementing your responses and producing such additional Documents to Plaintiff. 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 27 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBPOENA 1. All documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. 2. All documents relating to any investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 3. All documents relating to Ghislaine Maxwell. 4. All documents relating to any investigation of Ghislaine Maxwell. 5. All documents related to Sarah Kellen, a/k/a Sarah Vickers, a/k/a Sara Kensington. 6. All documents related to any investigation of Sarah Kellen, a/k/a Sarah Vickers, a/k/a Sara Kensington. 7. All documents related to any victims or alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or Sarah Kellen, a/k/a Sarah Vickers, a/k/a Sara Kensington. 8. All communications regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, a/k/a Sarah Vickers, a/k/a Sara Kensington. 9. All documents or communications regarding any investigator, police officer, prosecutor, or other government employee that had any involvement in the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not limited to, Barry Kirshner. 10. All documents or communications regarding any agent of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, a/k/a Sarah Vickers, a/k/a Sara Kensington, including, but not limited to, private investigators and attorneys. 11. Any documents or communications regarding any persons or entities who may have conducted any type of surveillance on you. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 27 B O IE S . SCH ILLE R & F L E X N ER LL P 401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301-2211 • PH 954.356.0011 • FAX 954.356.0022 VIA E-MAIL Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell June 17. 2016 Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Ms. Menninger: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. E-mail: smccawley@bst1lp.com On behalf of the Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, documents, Bates-stamped GIUFFRE005614 through GIUFFRE006279, are being produced pursuant to Defendant's Request for Production. All of the documents within this production have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with the Protective Order. Please treat these documents accordingly. This production consists of the March 19, 2010 deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey v,rith exhibits, and an unredacted version of the Police Incident Report that was used in redacted form as Exhibit 2 in that deposition. If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, or if there are any issues with the media, please do not hesitate to contact me at (954) 356-0011. SSM:dk Enclosures Sincerely, WWW.BSFLLP.COM Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-32 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(b) &(c) SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 26(a) .......................................... Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 24 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND FACTS............................................................................................................... 2 I. SANCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDER OR PROVIDE RULE 26(A) DISCLOSURES ....................................................................... 6 A. Rule 37(b) Factors for Failure to Comply With Court Order .............................................. 8 1. Plaintiff’s actions were willful ......................................................................................... 8 2. Lesser sanctions will be insufficient and Ms. Maxwell has been prejudiced ................ 10 3. Plaintiff has been non-compliant since the outset of discovery..................................... 11 4. Plaintiff and her counsel are fully aware of sanctions for non-compliance with Court orders.................................................................................................................................... 14 B. Additional Rule 37(c) Factors for Failure to Comply With Initial Disclosure Requirements ............................................................................................................................................ 15 1. The information withheld is critically important ........................................................... 15 2. Ms. Maxwell would require an extension of the discovery period ................................ 17 II. STRIKING CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF RULE 37, COMMENSURATE WITH THE INFORMATION WITHHELD, AND LESS HARSH THAN THE AVAILABLE DISMISSAL SANCTION.................................................................................................... 18 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 21 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 24 ii Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 24 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) files this Motion for Rule 37(b) &(c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a), stating as follows: CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL The undersigned has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on multiple occasions in an attempt to obtain records and interrogatory responses Ordered by the Court, including by letter dated April 25, 2016, outlining the expected productions and information. Menninger Decl., Ex. L. As set forth below, Plaintiff has not produced the documents and did not provide complete or accurate information. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is playing a game of catch and release. She is withholding information the Court ordered be produced and only releasing that information when she is caught in her deception. At the April 21, 2016 hearing on Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Compel, the Court clearly Ordered Plaintiff to disclose all of her treating health care providers since 1999 and produce their records. Plaintiff did not do so, and still has not provided this information to date. It is only through deposition testimony that Ms. Maxwell became aware of at least five – if not more – treating health care providers who were never previously identified. Yet, Plaintiff has never supplemented her discovery responses to include these health care providers. Plaintiff has also failed to provide records, or has provided incomplete records, of several of the health care professionals, both disclosed and newly discovered, despite her counsel’s assurances to this Court that all records have been produced. Further, Plaintiff has still failed to provide an actual computation of her damages, or any documentation supporting those claims. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 24 2 These discovery abuses cannot be condoned. All of this information is directly relevant to, and necessary to defend against, Plaintiff’s damages claims for “psychological and psychiatric injuries and resulting medical expenses” and “past, present and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem.” Plaintiff’s claims for these categories of damages must be stricken or evidence as to these damages precluded from trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)&(iii) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C). BACKGROUND FACTS On February 12, 2016, Ms. Maxwell served Interrogatories on Plaintiff for the identities and locations of any Health Care Provider from whom she has “received any treatment for any physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, that You suffered from subsequent to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell” (Interrogatory No. 12) and “prior to the Alleged Defamation.” Interrogatory No. 13 (emphasis added). As to both, Ms. Maxwell provided releases for Plaintiff’s signature. On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff refused to provide the names of any of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, nor the requested releases, claiming “privilege.” Menninger Decl., Ex. A. On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff served Supplemental Responses & Objections and then Amended Supplemental Responses & Objections. Menninger Decl., Ex. B. Neither contained responses as to Plaintiff’s health care providers. On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff also provided an Addendum to Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures in which she listed as potential witnesses, Dr. Steven Olson and Dr. Carol Hayek. Menninger Decl., Ex. C. In her Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff included medical records as documents that she intends to use to establish her damages claims. Menninger Decl., Ex. D. On March 22, 2016, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 24 3 Ms. Maxwell was forced to file a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Docket Entry (“DE”) 64.1 On March 31, 2016, Ms. Maxwell was forced to file a Motion to Compel Plaintiff, inter alia, to properly respond to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13. Docket Entry (“DE”) 75. On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court during oral argument that “We have disclosed the names. She has those names. We have also disclosed the records, the more recent records. We have not contested that…. But we have disclosed the names of the providers.” (Tr. at 21-22) Plaintiff’s counsel stated the only missing doctors were “in the past…. years and years ago.” (Tr. at 22-23) attached to Menninger Decl., Ex. E. At the April 21, 2016 hearing, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce the records from Ms. Giuffre’s medical doctors (apart from pre-1999) and to respond fully to the interrogatories concerning all of her treating physicians after 1999. Id. (Tr. 20-21). On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff served Second Amended Supplemental Responses & Objections. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. As to Interrogatory No. 12 (seeking the names of treatment providers subsequent to the Alleged Defamation). Plaintiff listed: x Dr. Steven Olson x Dr. Chris Donahue x Dr. John Harris and Dr. Majaliyana x Dr. Wah Wah x Dr. Sellathuri x Royal Oaks Medical Center x Dr. Carol Hayek x NY Presbyterian Hospital x Campbelltown Hospital x Sydney West Hospital x Westmead Hospital x Dr. Karen Kutikoff x Wellington Imaging Associates x Growing Together. 1 That motion remains open. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 24 4 For some providers, Plaintiff provided records, and the nature of treatment was identified by reference to the records. For other providers, no records were produced. Where no documents were produced, Plaintiff failed to identify the dates and nature of the treatment received, as requested in the Interrogatory. Id. Plaintiff failed therein to identify any treatment providers prior to the alleged defamation, despite the Court’s order concerning 1999-2015. At Plaintiff’s deposition on May 3, 2016, she described receiving treatment from Dr. Donahue and a Dr. Judith Lightfoot from October 2015 to the present. Menninger Decl., Ex. G at 308-14 & 328-331. Plaintiff also described obtaining prescriptions from Dr. Donahue from Dr. Olson. She claimed she was not treated by any other physicians that had not been previously listed. Id. During the deposition of Plaintiff’s mother, Lynn Miller, on May 24, 2016, Ms. Maxwell learned that . Menninger Decl., Ex. H at 144. On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff produced additional documentation from Centura Health for treatment received by Plaintiff in March 2015 ( ) and May 2015. These documents identify three additional health care professionals who treated Plaintiff, including Dr. Scott Robert Geiger, Dr. Joseph Heaney, and Donna Oliver P.A. Menninger Decl., Ex. I at 144. On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff sent Ms. Maxwell additional records obtained from Plaintiff’s treatment at Centura in June 2015. Those documents identify another medical provider, Dr. Michele Streeter. Menninger Decl., Ex. J at144. - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 24 5 Further, during the deposition of Dr. Olson on May 26, 2016, Ms. Maxwell learned that he had additional records in his laptop that had not been produced prior to his deposition.2 Menninger Decl., Ex. K, p. 36. As of today’s date, more than four months after Ms. Maxwell first sought the identities of Plaintiff’s health care providers and the records concerning the same, more than a month and a half since the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce such identities and records, and 10 days before the end of fact discovery in this case, Ms. Maxwell has learned of at least five additional doctors who have treated Plaintiff since the time of the alleged defamatory statement: Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Geiger, Dr. Heaney, Donna Oliver P.A and Dr. Streeter. In each case, documents relating to these doctors were not provided until after their identities became known through deposition or other independent investigation by Ms. Maxwell. Plaintiff still has failed to produce any records from: (a) Dr. Donahue, (b) Dr. Hayek, (c) Dr. Kutikoff, (d) Wellington Imaging Assocs., (e) Growing Together, (f) post 2011 records from Dr. Lightfoot, and (g) the remaining documents for treatment by Dr. Olson. With respect to Dr. Donahue, Dr. Hayek, Dr. Kutikoff, Wellington Imaging Assocs., Growing Together and Dr. Olson, Plaintiff has failed to provide complete responses to the Interrogatories including the dates and nature or treatment. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Plaintiff has alleged the following categories of damages: (A) “Physical, psychological and psychiatric injuries and resulting medical expenses—in the approximate amount of $102,200 present value”; (B) “Past, present and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of standing in the community, loss of dignity, and invasion of privacy in her public and private life not less than $30,000,000.00”; and (C) Estimated lost income of $180,000 annually. Present value $3,461,000 to $5,407,000” 2 At the deposition, copies were produced that were difficult to read. Despite requests, legible copies have not been provided. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 24 6 Pl’s Supp. Discl., at 15-18, Menninger Decl., Ex. D. I. SANCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDER OR PROVIDE RULE 26(A) DISCLOSURES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) sets forth the sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with a Court’s discovery order, providing in relevant part: (A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f),35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following: (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. (C) Payment of Expenses. Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. These same sanctions are available for Plaintiff’s failure to provide required disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. Procedure 26(a).3 Specifically, Rule 37(c) provides: 3 Rule 26(a)(iii) requires the Plaintiff to provide “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 24 7 (1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be hear (A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure; (B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and (C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)—(vi). “Under Rule 37(b)(2), courts enjoy broad discretion to sanction parties that fail to obey discovery orders. This discretion includes, but is not limited to, the power to issue an order ‘dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.’” Naguib v. Pub. Health Sols., No. 12- CV-2561 ENV LB, 2014 WL 3695965, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2014), appeal dismissed (Nov. 5, 2014). In “exercise [ ] its broad discretion to order sanctions under Rule 37,” a court may consider a number of factors in issuing sanctions for failure to comply with a Court Order, “including: (1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for the noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance, and (4) whether the noncompliant party had been warned of the consequences of his non-compliance.” Nieves v. City of New York, 208 F.R.D. 531, 535 (S.D.N.Y.2002); see also S. New England Tel. Co. v. Glob. NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (same). This list is not exclusive, and many courts also consider the prejudice to the opposing party in determination of the sanction that should be awarded. See id. (factors not exclusive); Labib v. 1141 Realty LLC, No. 10 CIV. 8357 MHD, 2013 WL 1311002, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013)(examining the prejudicial impact of the non-compliance). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 24 8 The factors considered in evaluation precluded as a sanction for non-disclosure under rule 26(a) are: “(1) the party's explanation for the failure to comply with the discovery [requirement]; (2) the importance of ... the precluded [evidence]; (3) the prejudice suffered by the opposing party as a result of having to prepare to meet the new testimony; and (4) the possibility of a continuance.” Mikulec v. Town of Cheektowaga, 302 F.R.D. 25, 29-30 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Ritchie Risk–Linked Strategies Trading (Ir.), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC, 280 F.R.D. 147, 157 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). The examination of these factors demonstrates that preclusion of Plaintiff’s claims regarding physical and emotional distress damages is the appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s April 21, 2015 discovery order and failure to provide medical information that bear directly on her damages claims under Rule 26(a)(iii). A. Rule 37(b) Factors for Failure to Comply With Court Order 1. Plaintiff’s actions were willful “Noncompliance with discovery orders is considered willful when the court's orders have been clear, when the party has understood them, and when the party's non-compliance is not due to factors beyond the party's control.” Davidson v. Dean, 204 F.R.D. 251, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Davis v. Artuz, 96 Civ. 7699(GBD), 2001 WL 50887 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2001)). The Court’s Order at the April 21, 2016 hearing was entirely clear – Plaintiff was required to fully respond to the Interrogatory identifying all of her medical providers from 1999 to present, including the dates of treatment, reasons for treatment, and costs of treatment, as well as providing records relating to her treatment. Menninger Decl., Ex. E. For avoidance of doubt, undersigned counsel sent a confirming letter to Plaintiff’s counsel setting forth the precise information required, and requesting that it be produced in advance of Plaintiff’s deposition to so that Plaintiff could be fully examined on these issues. Menninger Decl., Ex. L. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 24 9 At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to undersigned counsel and this Court that the identities and all medical records for Plaintiff’s treatment providers after the alleged defamation had been provided. Menninger Decl., Ex. E at 21-23. This was simply false. At this point, there are at least five treatment providers that had not been disclosed. None of their records were disclosed until after their identities were uncovered through depositions. Plaintiff was and is capable of at a minimum identifying the physicians and psychologists who have treated her – the matter is fully in her control. Yet, she completely failed to identify at least five health care providers. These were providers who she is currently seeing or has seen in the recent past, who have prescribed her medication, and are treating her for emotional and mental issues – the very things for which she is seeking damages. There can be no argument that the failure to identify and produce records from these doctors was anything but an intentional and willful violation. Additionally, at her deposition, Plaintiff intentionally concealed other treating physicians who treated her See Menninger Decl., Ex. I. As fully briefed, the existence of other or intervening physical and emotional distress damages was the primary purpose for requesting medical information and treatment providers. See Motion to Compel at 18-19 (DE 75). . Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 24 10 Plaintiff’s intentional refusal to obey this Court’s Order, including failure to disclose her treating psychologist she is still seeing to this day for the very injuries she claims in this lawsuit, is ground for precluding her damage claims for physical and emotional distress. 2. Lesser sanctions will be insufficient and Ms. Maxwell has been prejudiced Plaintiff’s pattern of discovery abuses and failure to disclose necessary and required information makes clear that no lesser sanction will deter Plaintiff’s continuing discovery abuses. “[T]he purposes of Rule 37 sanctions, [is] “to ‘ensure that a party will not benefit from its own failure to comply,’ to ‘obtain compliance with a particular order issued,’ and to ‘serve a general deterrent effect on the case at hand and on other litigation, provided that the party against whom they are imposed was in some sense at fault.’” Szafrankowska v. AHRC Home Care Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 186206, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) (quoting Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Pub., Ltd., 843 F.2d 67, 71 (2d Cir.1988)); see also S. New England, 624 F.3d at 149. Ms. Maxwell has been severely prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to provide the required identifying information and documents from her health care providers. One health care provider identified by Plaintiff in her deposition is a psychiatrist, Judith Lightfoot, who is located in Australia. Plaintiff’s specifically claims Obviously, Dr. Lightfoot has relevant information concerning Plaintiff’s emotional state both before and after the alleged defamatory statement. Indeed, her testimony could conclusively prove that Plaintiff’s mental state has been unaffected by the alleged defamation. Despite this, Plaintiff purposefully omitted Dr. Lightfoot from her ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 24 11 sworn interrogatory responses and has not produced any records from Dr. Lightfoot’s recent treatment of Plaintiff.4 With less than ten days left in discovery, arranging for and taking the deposition of Dr. Lightfoot – a person living in a foreign county, is nearly impossible. Likewise, Plaintiff has seen another doctor, Dr. Donahue, . She has met with him on two occasions, both after the alleged defamatory statement. Yet, Plaintiff failed to identify this as the nature of Dr. Donahue’s treatment in her Interrogatory Reponses. Nor did she identify the time frame in which she was treated by Dr. Donahue. She has never provided his records. Obviously, Dr. Donahue also has relevant information, which was entirely unclear from the Interrogatory response provided. This information is all relevant, discoverable, and was purposefully hidden by Plaintiff. Any action short of precluding claims for physical, psychological and emotional distress damages will fall short of serving Rule 37’s purpose to “ensure that a party will not benefit from its own failure to comply” with court orders. S. New England, 624 F.3d at 149. To permit Plaintiff to get away with her purposeful non-compliance would reward her by allowing her to conceal relevant discoverable information that might fully disprove causation between Ms. Maxwell’s statement and Plaintiff’s alleged physical symptoms and emotional distress. 3. Plaintiff has been non-compliant since the outset of discovery From the initiation of discovery, Plaintiff has played hide the ball. Starting with the service of Rule 26(a) disclosures, Plaintiff has simply refused to turn over required and necessary 4 After Plaintiff revealed Dr. Lightfoot’s identity in her deposition, Plaintiff belatedly produced a single document from Dr. Lightfoot concerning Plaintiff’s initial consultation with her in 2011. No records from her more recent treatment have been produced. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 24 12 information. In her initial Rule 26(a) disclosures in November 2015, Plaintiff failed to provide any information on the calculation of or supporting evidence for her damages claim. When she supplemented her Rule 26(a) disclosures, she provided none of the necessary information or an actual computation of damages, relying on other people’s alleged earning potential and average damage awards in other cases with completely different claim types. See Motion to Compel Rule 26(a) Disclosure at 5-6 (DE 64).5 To date, over six months after her Rule 26(a) disclosures were required and with less than 10 days left in discovery, Plaintiff has failed and refused to provide any supporting documentation for her damages claims or an actual computation of her damages based on her alleged injury as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(iii). At a minimum, reliance on any calculation, information or evidence that has not been provided as of this filing of this motion must be precluded. Plaintiff’s Rule 26 failures do not end with the damages calculations. It has now become clear that Plaintiff failed to disclose witnesses with relevant information based on the subpoenas she has served in this matter. Plaintiff repeatedly has issued subpoenas to witnesses for depositions and document production before including them on her Rule 26 disclosures. To wit, x Allyson Chambers – subpoena February 12; disclosed March 11 x Aviation Insurance – subpoena April 27; never disclosed x – subpoena notice May 16; disclosed June 1 x Joe Recarey – subpoena notice May 17; disclosed June 1 x Michael Reiter – subpoena notice May 17; disclosed June 1 x Shopper’s Paradise – subpoena notice April 26; never disclosed How many other witnesses are there with relevant information that Plaintiff has hidden? 5 No ruling had been made on this Motion. - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 24 13 Plaintiff has been equally evasive in responding to written discovery. Until Ms. Maxwell was forced to file a Motion to Compel, Plaintiff failed to give even the most basic relevant and fully discoverable information, including the identities of Plaintiff’s physicians, information on her work and education history, and even the identity of her counsel and the matters on which they represent her. See DE 75. After being ordered to provide this information, Plaintiff continued her strategy of providing made up or false information, or simply refusing to provide the ordered information. First, despite being ordered to produce all documents relating to alleged law enforcement inquiries other than Plaintiff’s own statements (which would be provided for in camera review), she simply provided all documents relating to alleged law enforcement inquires for in camera review, attempting to re-litigate the issue instead of complying with the Court’s order. See DE 139. Second, she and her attorneys have fabricated and backdated a string of engagement letters attempting to substantiate their privilege claims, as fully detailed in Ms. Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents. See DE 191, p. -9. As shown above, Plaintiff only selectively and belatedly turned over medical records and the identity of her medical providers, and only after Ms. Maxwell uncovered their existence. Similarly, Plaintiff was specifically asked for photographs of Plaintiff with certain individuals (including Prince Andrew), and production of those photographs in native format. Plaintiff claimed she produced documents she had, but did not possess any native format pictures. Menninger Decl., Ex. E at 26-27. In Plaintiff’s deposition, she revealed that she had a box of documents that included pictures, including perhaps a photograph of herself and Prince Andrew, but that she did not look through the box or provide any of its contents. Menninger Decl., Ex. G at 208-13. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel produced 60 pages of pictures previously withheld. Menninger Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 24 14 Decl., Ex. M. Plaintiff still not provided the native versions of these photographs. This pattern was repeated again in just the past few days when Plaintiff turned over additional relevant documents from Plaintiff’s iCloud account, but only did so after Ms. Maxwell’s counsel ferreted out that account through detailed review of documents produced showing that the account was used by Plaintiff including in her correspondence with her counsel. Plaintiff failed to disclose the account, the identity of which was requested discovery. Compare Menninger Decl., Ex. F at 8-9 with Menninger Decl., Ex. G at 277; Menninger Decl., Ex. N (letter re: iCloud account). While Ms. Maxwell has been able to unearth some of the information Plaintiff has purposefully withheld, there is simply no telling what else she is still hiding. “The sanctions imposed by Rule 37 for obstructing or failing to comply with discovery procedures would be hollow indeed if they could be imposed only on those whose efforts at concealment proved to be successful. Plaintiff may not properly escape the consequences of [plaintiff’s] own wrongful conduct because the defendants were diligent and persistent enough to overcome the obstacles which [plaintiff] placed in their path.” Nittolo v. Brand, 96 F.R.D. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Put simply, Plaintiff’s discovery abuses have been rampant since the beginning of this case. In the case of withholding required documents and information regarding health care providers that are central to the defense claimed damages, these abuses necessitate preclusion of the claims. 4. Plaintiff and her counsel are fully aware of sanctions for non￾compliance with Court orders “Although formal warnings often precede the imposition of serious sanctions, this court has never considered warning an absolute condition precedent.” Davidson v. Dean, 204 F.R.D. 251, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Plaintiff is represented by no less than four law firms and has seven attorneys of record in this case. Each should be fully aware, without need for warning, that the failure to comply with this Court’s orders can result in Rule 37 sanctions. “[I]t is an elementary Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 24 15 fact and expectation of legal practice that an attorney who fails to abide by a court rule or order may be subject to sanctions or other adverse consequences.” In re Payne, 707 F.3d 195, 206 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Lathman, P.C., No. 06 CIV. 1202 LGS HBP, 2014 WL 715612, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014) (“Although [the offending party] was not expressly warned of the consequences of disobeying my Orders, she is an attorney and is chargeable with knowing the consequences of violating a court order.” (footnote omitted)). B. Additional Rule 37(c) Factors for Failure to Comply With Initial Disclosure Requirements The factors considered under Rule 37(b) and (c) largely overlap, and the issues of willfulness and prejudice are addressed above. The two additional factors considered in imposing the sanctions for failure to provide required Rule 26(a) damages calculations and documents -- the importance of the information withheld and possibility of continuance – also warrant imposition of striking the claims for physical and emotional distress damages. 1. The information withheld is critically important As fully explained in the Motion to Compel Rule 26(a) disclosures, to date Plaintiff still has not provided an actual computation of the physical and emotional distress damages she claims. Despite specific discovery requests, Plaintiff failed to provide the information about her most current physical and mental health treatment providers – those people whom she saw after the alleged defamation. This information is critical to the defense against Plaintiff’s damages claims. The undisclosed records demonstrate that Plaintiff did not seek any treatment immediately following the alleged defamatory statement on January 2, 2015. The first treatment she sought thereafter was on March 5, 2015 and was unrelated to any physical or emotional distress caused by the alleged defamatory statement. Instead, she was treated at a hospital for a domestic violence incident in which her husband strangled and punched her. This highly Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 24 16 . Yet, Plaintiff did not report this treatment or identify these health care providers in her Initial Disclosures or Interrogatory Reponses. She also purposefully left this information out of her testimony relating to doctors she has seen after January 2, 2015. . Plaintiff is obviously trying to hide this very serious other intervening cause of her damages – and she almost got away with it. Dr. Lightfoot is perhaps the most relevant health care provider, yet her name appears nowhere in the Disclosures or in the Interrogatory Reponses. Plaintiff still has not produced a single record from Dr. Lightfoot for any treatment after the alleged defamatory statement. A third doctor, Dr. Donahue, may have been named, but the nature and dates of the treatment he provided were never disclosed. . No records have been produced. . Menninger Decl., Ex. G, p. 336. There is a clear need to depose Dr. Donahue regarding this failure to mitigate damages. Yet, his records have not been produced, and his role in Plaintiff’s treatment was not disclosed until Plaintiff’s deposition. - - ~---- Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 24 17 One can only assume Dr. Carol Hayek has relevant information – she was actually included in Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Responses & Objections. Plaintiff nevertheless fails to identify the nature of Dr. Hayek’s treatment of her and no records have been produced. Plaintiff cannot be permitted to identify people with relevant information that she plans on relying on and yet refuse to inform the defense the content of the information. The information that was withheld and only produced after Ms. Maxwell’s counsel discovered its existence is of paramount importance to the damages claims. It is likely that the still undisclosed evidence is equally compelling. 2. Ms. Maxwell would require an extension of the discovery period Ms. Maxwell does not wish to extend the discovery deadlines in this matter and has diligently worked to meet all deadlines so that this case can proceed on the schedule set out in the Scheduling Order. Ms. Maxwell obtained the deposition testimony of the one treatment provider Plaintiff did initially identify6 – Dr. Olsen – who has provided valuable information that disproves any physical or emotional distress damages caused by the alleged defamation. Now, on the eve of discovery closing, Ms. Maxwell has learned of at least five other medical treatment providers in the most relevant timeframe – people providing medical and mental health services post the alleged defamatory statement in January 2015. Plaintiff’s discovery failures in hiding relevant treating physician information have prevented Ms. Maxwell from obtaining what now appears to be critical information. Two of these providers – Drs. Lightfoot and Donahue -- are located in Australia, requiring significant travel to obtain their deposition, and potentially requiring service of process through other means. Four other treatment providers – Dr. Geiger, 6 Plaintiff also originally disclosed a Dr. Carol Hayek as a treatment provider. However, no information has been provided on what Dr. Hayek treated Plaintiff for or when she was treated, and no medical records have been produced. - - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 24 18 Dr. Heaney, Donna Oliver P.A and Dr. Streeter – reside in Colorado. Because they are outside of the jurisdiction, they are not subject to be compelled to appear at trial, requiring that their depositions be taken to present their testimony. Ms. Maxwell does not wish to drag this case out, and should not be forced to incur the time and expense that would be required to obtain discovery from these hidden health care providers, especially at this late stage. II. STRIKING CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF RULE 37, COMMENSURATE WITH THE INFORMATION WITHHELD, AND LESS HARSH THAN THE AVAILABLE DISMISSAL SANCTION. Under Rule 37, Ms. Maxwell could certainly request the more severe sanction of dismissal of the case.7 This most severe sanction would be appropriate in this circumstance. Dismissal is consistent with the sanctions imposed by many courts in this district and throughout New York in similar situations where medical records have been withheld despite a court order to produce, and those medical records are central to the issue in the case. See Nittolo v. Brand, 96 F.R.D. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Rule 37 for providing false and evasive answers concerning material facts including medical history); Skywark v. Isaacson, No. 96 CIV. 2815 JFK, 1999 WL 1489038, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1999), aff'd, No. 96 CIV. 2815 (JFK), 2000 WL 145465 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2000) (dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to turn over medical records relevant to claims, and withholding Court ordered information until uncovered by defendant); In re Consol. RNC Cases, No. 127, 2009 WL 130178, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2009) (dismissal of emotional distress claims under Rule 37 for failure to turn over relevant medical records despite Court Order); Witharana v. Dorsey, No. 13-CV-3102 ENV 7 Obviously, the Court has the power to elect this sanction on its own should it so choose. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 24 19 MDG, 2015 WL 4510273, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015) (dismissal of claims under Rule 37 for failure to provide Court Ordered medical releases relevant to claims). Here, Ms. Maxwell seeks the lesser sanction of striking the claim or precluding evidence only on the damages that relate to the withheld documents and information. The information being withheld – medical and psychological providers and their records – related directly to the claims for physical, psychological and emotional distress damages. The sanction sought is commensurate with and directly related to Plaintiff’s violation of the Court’s Order. Given the ten days left in discovery Ms. Maxwell cannot adequately get discovery on this newly disclosed evidence. In light of Plaintiff’s continuing and persistent discovery misconduct, the punishment fits. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court enter an Order: 1) Striking Plaintiff Damages Claims for psychological pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress (Complaint ¶ 19), Physical, psychological and psychiatric injuries and resulting medical expenses (Rule 26(a) Disclosures, Paragraph (C)(1)) and “Past, present and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of standing in the community, loss of dignity and invasion of privacy in her public and private life” (Rule 26(a) Disclosures, Paragraph (C)(1)); 2) For attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing this Motion; and 3) Warning Plaintiff that further violation of this Court orders or the discovery rules may result in the sanction of dismissal of her claims. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 24 20 Dated: June 20, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 24 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 20, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Motion for Rule 37(B) &(C) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(A) via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-33 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant’s Motion For Rule 37(B) &(C) Sanctions For Failure To Comply With Court Order And Failure To Comply With Rule 26(A) I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion for Rule 37(b) &(c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Plaintiff’s Response and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, served March 16, 2016. ............................................ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-34 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 4 2 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Plaintiff’s Amended and Supplemental Response and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, served March 22, 2016. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Addendum to Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, served March 22, 2016. 5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre’s Revised Disclosure Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, served March 11, 2016. 6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the transcript of the hearing held before this Court on April 21, 2016. 7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Supplemental Response and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, served April 29, 2016. 8. Attached as Exhibit G (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of Virginia Giuffre taken in the above captioned matter on May 3, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 9. Attached as Exhibit H (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of Lynn Trude Miller taken in the above captioned matter on May 24, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 10. Attached as Exhibit I (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of medical records bates labeled GIUFFRE005498-005569, produced by Plaintiff on June 1, 2016. 11. Attached as Exhibit J (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of medical records bates labeled GIUFFRE005492-5496, produced by Plaintiff on May 25, 2016. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-34 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 4 3 12. Attached as Exhibit K (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Steven Olsen taken in the above captioned matter on May 26, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 13. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a letter from Laura A. Menninger to Sigrid McCawley dated April 25, 2016 concerning discovery. 14. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a letter from Sigrid McCawley to Laura A. Menninger and documents produced by Plaintiff bates labeled GIUFFRE005370- 5430, produced by Plaintiff on May 12, 2016. 15. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a letter from Sigrid McCawley to Laura A. Menninger enclosing documents based labeled GIUFFRE005607-5613, produced by Plaintiff on June 14, 2016. By: /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-34 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 20, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant’s Motion For Rule 37(B) &(C) Sanctions For Failure To Comply With Court Order And Failure To Comply With Rule 26(A) via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-34 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT G Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 12         !"               Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 12  1      2     3   4    5    6     7  8  !"#$"$ 9 $%   10  && 11  ''%$ 12 ''$ 13 !"   14   15   #  16 #    17    18 #   19  $ % 20 $" 21 !     22   "    23  24  ' # 25 $ $  ( 1 )  $'''' 2  $ $$ 3  4 $  " 5      6    7 )*+,- *,./01 8  %$$' 9  %$$'1#  10   $.$  11 %&'$())*)(+,#  12 -  13  2 $ 14 '# "$#'#3# 15 33 16 $ -  17   18    19 '  -  20 " " 21  ""   22  4 23 .  - " 24    25  5 6 1 * (   2     3  5 4 #-  5  $ 6 . 7  $1'" 8 .  9      10   % 11 ##"$ 12 %$'$7' 13 " 14 !   15   16    17 !  18  )  19 !  20    21    22 !   23 $    24   #$&&' 25 "#$'.         8 1 $ "$  $  2 $/""  "   3  4#1 '' 4 $     5  0122 0120  6     7     " 0123 8 !*  9  4 10 . "   11   12    13   # 14 *  "  15   16    "$ 17 #$  "  18 9 19 */-" / 20 "" 21   # 22 #  "   23    " 24 4 .  25  ' Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 12 : 1 '$ 2 #  3  ; 4 #  5  .  6 # $ 7   -; 8 ''  # $'" ' 9 ''$  10 #  11  .  12 # $ 13   14 . 15  -#$ &&$ 16 &&$#'$ 17 #   18   19 '$ 20 #/ " 21  -$ $ 22 *    23 */   ./ 24 -/  25  4 3 1 $     2  3  3' 4 ''#  5 ' 6  '$  7 # 8     9  -'"    10   11  4 12 . $   13    14  4 15 #/ "   16   17 *  " 18   19  %" $' # 20 $ 21 !   22   "1&& 23  1  24  25 #  33 1  )$< " 2 #   3  2+' 4 .   5  $"  6 $  7   "$ 8 4& 9   "$ 10 #   11  12  )3 13  14  1'' 15  &&  # 16 ")3 17 '    18  '' 19  ""' 20 $#$)3 21 !    22 "  23  = 24 .  25  -"'         3 1 # 2  33 3 #  4  4 5 $" 0122"  6     7  4 8 #   9    .  10 )*+,- *,./01 11  , &&&& 12  "$# 13 ; #" # 14 ' "$$ $  15  16 %&'$())*)(+,!  17 "    5 18 "  19  ; 20 "' 21   $ 22 "# 23  ' 24 '.    25    Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 12 37 1 6"   "  2  .  3  .  $5 4 '' 5  6  ';&   7 !"  $ 8    9 6 $/ 10 .  11  $. $" # 12 $ 13 !    14       5 15  16  %'$$  17 " 18        19    " 0123 20  %$ 21 7/ 22  4 23 ! 24  4 25   3> 1  ) $ 2   "$$'? 3 $$"# 4 #  5  2  6 #    7   %$ ' 8 .  9  $$"  10 #/   11    12 89 13   14  15  4 16 #     17  .$''* && " 18 '$ 19 ) !  20  4 21 !  22  !" $$ 23  24 !"  25  %$  3 1 -  2 !    3  "   4  4 5 #" 6  '$ 7 '$'' 8 $&&' 9 6 10   "$,' 11   $ 12 */  13    14 99 15  '$ 16 @$'  17  18 */   19    20     21  % 22 %'' 23 # "  24    25  $&& @         3( 1   $ 2 $.2  3 ..2.# $$ 4 2  5 !   6    7    8 #    & 9  " 10    11    12 #    & 13 /$ $  14  15    16 ! $    17   18    19 !   20 $       21 )*+,- *,./01 1" 22 "$ 23 ' " 24 0$ 25 $## - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 12 66 1  0#" # 9# 2 && 3 ' 9  4  4 5 ) 9   6 "  "  7  A #' 8 $/"" "  9 9   10  4# "$ 11 &   12  #*B 13 .9    14   #  15 . -  16 : +  %;!210,   17  .1 18 7  "  19  0## 20 . 21 -  0<"    22  5 23 .;+  - 24 "  25  4 68 1 . .9 2 ;+  ="  3  . 4 7"    5  6  .# 7 '   8 ;4"     9  .&' 10 $ '"$2  11 5CD?   12 '   = 13 ' CD$ 14 ' ' 2  15  $  16  17  '#' 18 "$ + $ CD 19  )"  20 '$  21 .  ; 22  >&*  23    24  5 ''' 25 $&&# 6: 1 + 2    3 .& (    4      5 "9   6  5 7 '" 99; 8   9   9  "$1 # 1 10 $ $#2 5CD" 11 $&& "$$ 12 &&$&& 13 $#&& 14 $/   15   16  4 17 &/" 18    19  "$#" 20 $    21 3>.$ 22 $ 23 # "   24  25  .'"$#         8 1 '"' 2  '=  3 !    4 ""  5 )*+,- *,./01 6  E#&&$#$ 7  $ =  8 %&'$())*)(+,#  9  10   "$   11 #"& 12  '  13  # 14 !  9 15 $    16  "  "  17  .#$  18 ?5 19   @" 20 89 21  )"'  22 +!    9 23 $      24  5"9  25   Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 12 7 1 $ !"'  2  B 3 );$ 2+' 4 .33  # 5 # 6 , 33 7  8 3 $"$   9   #''  10 '' 11 %&'$())*)(+,.*/ 12   "   13    "012@99*  14   "0122 5" 15  * / 16 ="  17  "$3  18 )  "0122$  *  19   20  433 21 '!  22  "0122 23 ? 24  "  25   7( 1 $ 2  " " 3 0122 4  "  5  6  7      8  '   9 B);$ 2+' 10 !99    11    0122 12 " " 13 "  14      " 15 0122 16     '"&&   17 '"$  18 #$'# " 19 &&"#  '$# 20  21  $#  22  $"   $# 23 &&$''" '# 24 "#$3>F3   $ 25 "=";#0#B # 76 1  2 "$4"$#"  3 .&&'"  4 ;'  5 . $"   6  "    "  7     8 012A 012@ 9  4#" 3># 10 3  11 . . "0122 12 /      13   14   #  15 ! "0122  16 !"/( 0B  "" 17  18   #$$  19  20 !   0122 21  "!"/( 0B 22  -# "$G# 23  "$2#''$ 24  $  " #   25  .$           78 1 33 2 #  0122$C 3 99 4  0# 5 !  " -  6 0122 " !"/ 7 ( 0B-  8   && "''  9 133 10 !  11  !"/( 0B 12    '' 13 "   14  B 2 15 6  16    17  *# 18 #    19  ?2 ! 20 .  21  .  22 # .  23  .. #$ ' 24  25 6     Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 12 7: 1  4 2 # 3  33 4 . ."" 5 ""    6  .' 7 . 6    8 0122 9   # $ 10 " '&&"# 11    && 12  " $$ 13 " 14 2  .  15 .6( 1 16   17   $ $ 18 '    19 '' 20 !   21 !"/( 0B 22  ; 23 .&& 24  25 %( 0D , 73 1 %&'$())*)(+,*/ 2 !"/( 0D 3  4 4 . 6 5 "  6  4 7 .   8  *A' "*# 9 &&$.&& 10 1B);$ "$ 11  # 12  13 /%$# 14     15 ));$ 16   # 17 /+  18 $$ ' 19  $   $  20 )* ,$9  21 ;$#$  22 )* 23    '9 $# 24  B);$ 25 '   733 1 );$ &&; 2 +;&&  3 #$''  4 ' $ " 5  '   6  7 . 6 8 "  9  # 10 . #99 11 ?"*/" 12 /   13  # 14 *! 15   "$$  16  17 #"  18  19  % 20  %$ 21 '$#)* 22  #  23 ' 24 $    25  +  /          73 1   2  4 3 .  4  $'  5 ' # 6    7 "$     ;' 8   9 2+'  10  11 $ */ "  12 5 13  4 14 #  15     16  +  /   17  -3'#" 18 $  19 '  $  20 "$'# 21  22 . "$$ 23 $ $  24 '%#"$  25 # $'9  - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 12 737 1 . 2 /+  /    3  4 4 #"  5  6  $   7   8 . 9  $& 10 ;  " 11    12  4 13 '/    14   $&# 15 . !99*/   16   "  17 ;?" 18  4 19 . . 20   21  -" #2   22  # 23 '"$ 5 ? 24 ,0  $ 25   $  73> 1 #$"$ '  2    '  3    # 4 $5  5 ;?" 6 **  7 "   . )   " 8 012@=  9    0# 10 $'" '" 11 . ./  12    13 !      14  5 15 .!  16   "$  17 $ 18 !  19   20 .    21 /    22 +  /   23 7/   24 !   25  '"$,0 73 1 ''  2 !  " 3 / 4   5    6 #  7   "; 0 012@ 8  " 9 ;   10 $ #  11  $''#));$ 12  CD 13 .*  14   99 15 )*+,- *,./. 16 $@4 17  18 ).)+  B+*/ $ 19  20 )*+,- *,./  21 ' #  22 ;'$  23 %&'$())*)(+,#  24    ; 0 012@ 25           73( 1  G;"# ' 2 ")'# 3 $;")&& 4 '#; ) 5  #1 6 ## $ 7   8   "$' 9  ' ' 10 $  G*. 11   $' 12 $ 13   $$' 14 $$ 15 "  ' 16 '  $' 17 % 18 $ '%$ 19  "$ ' 20   $#1  21  22 %&'$())*)(+,. 7 23 "  24 "!"/( 0D 25  )'#'# Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 12 7 1 .  " 2    3 !&4" 4   5  4# 6 !4 .    7   8 )*+,- *,./= 9  "   10 %&'$())*)(+,6 11  /""     12 / .! C/ 13 4 . / 14  B);$; 15 " .$  16 .' # 17  $ # ;# 18 '#  19 .$# 20 # $  1 21 '' $# 22   23 $  24 ""  ""  25 - 7( 1  0# 2 99"    3 /; 0 . 4 ! C    5 .  6  0#0""$ 7  ,$9"$ 8   $0 9   ''$  10  '' #$ 11 $  " 12  13 -$B 14 );$  15 #$$  16 #%# 17   18 %"   19 $  20 .    21  " / 22   "   23  5'' 24   25 " / 76 1  2 )*+,- *,./01 3 @ 4  5''&& 5    5'&& 6 %&'$())*)(+,.  7  &&  $ 8 # .   9  "  10   $# 11 '3  #"$# 12 #    13  "   # 14 $$ 15 %$ 16  "'' 17 $$ "'  $ 18  " '"$ 19 4"$#  20   "$#"   "$ 21  .  22 ' " ) 23  24 75 .    25  0##$"         78 1 ''' 2 ) 3  0"#$ ## 4  9  5 7  6 /  7  % $  8  #"$#$#"$# 9   #   # 10 "$#$$ 11 $  .   12  "     13  4 14 . .  15 !   " 16 /   17 )*+,- *,./01 18  4##$ 19 '#$' 20     CD 21  2 B 22 %&'$())*)(+,# 23  "  24   "$#  25  4"$&& Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 12 7: 1 # "  2  -#&&7# 3 $ 4     #2  5 !#33 6  7   #"$# 8  $ ;' 9 2 ! #$ 10  11  12 #  13  4"$# "$ 14 #  15  E&& 16 )*+,- *,./. 17   18 $&& 19 %?+,+0 + %/4 20 )*+,- *,./&&# 21 $ 22 %?+,+0 + %/0" 23 ).)+  B+*/--4 24   $$ 25   77 1 )*+,- *,./. 2 $ 3  # 4   ';'$ # 5 $@ 6 $ 7  "$$ 8 %?+,+0 + %/%$ 9  10 %&'$())*)(+,. $ 11 ! ?"'  12 ! .  13   14 ./; 0 15 012@ 16  ,0#,!0# 17 ,, 18 # ! ! 19  ?; 20   21 .  9  22 9   23  ?  24 ."   "  25     && 773 1 1  2 !$ 2 ' 3  4     5 .   6 .  7  5 8 ."  9   10   $$ 11 */  * 12   *-99 13  ,, 14 !   15 7 / 16     * 17   18  E . 19 . 20  .= 21 .  22  E#= !=  23 . 24   25  0-#$$         77 1 ; # 2 . !"" "  3 " ;"" (  4  $'  5 ;2+' 6 7/5 7  , && 8 # "" "  "  9 ;"" (  10  "'$ 11 $  12 @$'" #$ 13 ' 2+' 14 !"" "   "  15 ;"" (  16   $ # 17 $"" "  18 7- / = 19  20   #$   21        22  '2+'$ 23  2+' 24 B);$# %$ 25  "H; "1' Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 12 777 1 ;  $ 2 &" ;"" (   3   4  .# 5 #    6 ;"" (  7  " '"+ 8  9  4#$  # 10 & 11 !  "  12 ;"" (  13   #$&&$ 14 #$ 15 '$  "#$  16   17 #     18          19  ;"" (  20   "#' 21  "$ && 22 ;$$# 23 && 24 #    25 ;"" (  77> 1   #$     2 #    3 " " "  4   #$'4# 5 $#$ 6 $  $ 7 6     8 ;"" (  9  "   # 10 " 11  12  * 13 6"! ?" 14  0$") "'' 15 $"  16 ;'"$# 17 =%#&& 18 6! ?"  19      20   #&&"$' 21 $  $ $  22 $ &&,,$ 23 ''#' 24 $2 ' 25  77 1 6  2 ! ?" 3  ?I 4 .  5  .  6 #   7  ."  8 $ " "" 7 9 >     E011  10  11  4 12 .! ?"  13      14  .$ $'" 15 ."'"# 16 .  17 $"#." 18 $'#'' 19  $ "$ 20 $$ 21  $ 22 .  # 23 @#@ 24 !   "  25   # .'         77( 1   2 * /  3 /  4    5   .# 6 7/*  7 ! ?"  8  9 . "  10  4# 11 .! ! 12  ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, V. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------X Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant's Motion to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre I, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a member of the law :firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Defendant's Motion to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the transcript of the hearing held before this Court on April 21, 2016. 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a letter from Laura A. Menninger to Sigrid McCawley dated April 25, 2016 concerning discovery. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Second Amended Supplemental Response and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, served April 29, 2016. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-36 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 5. Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy the Deposition of Virginia Giuffre taken in the above captioned matter on May 3, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 6. Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of medical records bates labeled GIUFFRE005431-5438, produced by Plaintiff on May 12, 2016. 7. Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of medical records bates labeled GIUFFRE005492-5496, produced by Plaintiff on May 25, 2016. 8. Attached as Exhibit G (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of Lynn Trude Miller taken in the above captioned matter on May 24, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 9. Attached as Exhibit H (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of medical records bates labeled GIUFFRE005498-005569. produced by Plaintiff on June 1, 20 I 6. 10. Attached as Exhibit I (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Steven Olsen taken in the above captioned matter on May 26, 2016, and designated by Plaintiff as Confidential under the Protective Order. 11. Attached as Exhibit K (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of a letter from Sigrid Mccawley to Laura A. Menninger enclosing documents bates labeled GIUFFRE005607- 5613, produced by Plaintiff on June 10, 2016. 12. Attached as Exhibit Lis a true and correct copy of a letter from Laura A. Menninger to Sigrid Mccawley and Meredith Shultz dated June 13, 2016 concerning discovery. 13. Attached as Exhibit M (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the Errata Sheet served relating to the Deposition of Virginia Giuffre taken in the above captioned matter, served on June L 2016. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-36 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 14. Attached as Exhibit N (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre's Third Revised Disclosure Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, served June 1, 2016. By: / sl Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 20, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Laura A. Menninger In Support Of Defendant's Motion to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P .L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com 3 Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com Isl Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-36 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 48 1 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFF Plaintiff hereby serves her second amended supplemental responses and objections to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests violates Local Civil Rule 33.3. Defendant has served interrogatories that are in direct violation of that Rule because the interrogatories are not “restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature.” Local Civil Rule 33.3(a). Instead, they seek information under subsections (b) and (c) of Local Civil Rule 33.3, and therefore, they should not be served because they are not “a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition,” and because they were served in advance of the period “30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date.” Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 48 2 Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories. See Rule 33.3, Local Rules for the Southern District of New York; see also Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV. 5079 (Sweet, J.), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001); accord Gary Friedrich Enterprises, LLC v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 08 CIV. 1533 BSJ JCF, 2011 WL 1642381, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011). Specifically, Rule 33.3 provides: (a) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, at the commencement of discovery, interrogatories will be restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature. (b) During discovery, interrogatories other than those seeking information described in paragraph (a) above may only be served (1) if they are a more practical method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition, or (2) if ordered by the Court. (c) At the conclusion of other discovery, and at least 30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date, interrogatories seeking the claims and contentions of the opposing party may be served unless the Court has ordered otherwise. Similarly, Requests for Production numbers 1, 2, 4, 6(i), 9, 12, 30, 35 and 37 also violate Local Rule 33.3 in that they rely on the offending interrogatory requests. The Rule provides that a party must first try to obtain discovery through document production and testimony. Discovery does not close in this case until July 1, 2016, and Defendant has not yet noticed a deposition. As such, these interrogatories violate Local Rule 33.3 and are premature. Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests also violates Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., which provides “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts” – in that Defendant has served a total of 59 interrogatories, including subparts, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 48 3 in violation of Rule 33. We ask that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories that exceed the 25 interrogatory limit set by Rule 33. Ms. Giuffre objects to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they seek information that is protected by any applicable privilege, including but not limited to, attorney client privilege, work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests call for the production of documents or information that is already in the possession, custody, or control of the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre further objects to the requests to the extent that Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests is duplicative of documents and information that can equally or more readily be obtained by the Defendant. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent that they seek documents that are not relevant, material, or necessary to this action and, thus, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Many of the requests in the Defendant’s First Set of Discovery seek documents that are in no way limited to their relation to this case. Indeed, they seek documents that are not important to resolving the issues; documents that are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense; and documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case. Such requests create a heavy burden on Ms. Giuffre that outweighs any benefit. Such discovery is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly under the 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is wholly inappropriate. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent that they are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are overly Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 48 4 broad under Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests as overly burdensome to the extent that they would require logging voluminous and ever-increasing privileged communications between Ms. Giuffre and her counsel after the date litigation commenced on September 21, 2015. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests as overly burdensome to the extent that they would require logging voluminous privileged documents between Ms. Giuffre and her counsel related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case no. 08- 80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida; Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz, Case no. CACE 15-000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida; and Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656- CIV-Marra/Johnson (Southern District of Florida). Accordingly, due the undue burden of individually logging responsive privileged documents related to Defendant’s overly broad requests, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging of such privileged responsive documents pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests in that they seek to invade her privacy for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating Ms. Giuffre who was a victim of sexual trafficking. Ms. Giuffre objects to the requests to the extent they are overly broad and unduly burdensome. Ms. Giuffre objects to Defendant’s definition of “your attorneys” because it includes names of attorneys that do not represent her, including Spencer Kuvin and Jack Scarola. Ms. Giuffre’s responses to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests are being made after reasonable inquiry into the relevant facts, and are based only upon the information and documentation that is presently known to her. Ms. Giuffre reserves the right to modify and/or supplement her responses. Ms. Giuffre is producing documents and information herewith, and she will continue to review and produce relevant documents until completion. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 48 5 Ms. Giuffre incorporates her above-listed general objections in the responses herein. INTERROGATORIES 1. State: a. Your present residential address; b. Each residential address You have had since 1998, including any residential treatment facilities; c. the dates You lived at each address; d. the other Persons who lived with You at each address and for what period of time they lived at such address. Response to Interrogatory One: Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in part because it violates Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information that is sought by Defendant only to harass and intimidate Ms. Giuffre who was a victim of sexual trafficking. Per the Plaintiff’s First Responses and Objections, and per our representations during the March 21, 2016 meet and confer phone call, we are working diligently to find information to supplement the below information with regard to address and dates, and once that information is obtained, Plaintiff will serve supplemental responses. Additionally, per the March 21, 2016 meet and confer phone call, we are addressing with the Plaintiff whether she will reveal here address to Defendant’s counsel confidentially and we will update you with her response. a. Due to safety concerns with respect to Ms. Giuffre and her minor children, she is not at liberty to reveal her present residential location. To ensure that Defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to provide information about Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 48 6 Giuffre’s specific residential location, Ms. Giuffre agrees to have her attorney’s accept service on her behalf of any necessary communication or filings in this matter to be addressed to: Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316. b. Ms. Giuffre can recall living at the following addresses during the period of 1998 to the present. Ms. Giuffre may have lived at other locations for which she does not presently have the address. Ms. Giuffre is providing the information she has presently to the best of her recollection and review of documents and will supplement to the extent she obtains additional information responsive to this interrogatory. c. Ms. Giuffre believes she has lived at the following residences: ! In January 1998, Ms. Giuffre was 14 years old. Ms. Giuffre recalls one facility named “Growing Together” that was located in or around Palm Beach, but she does not recall the dates when she resided at the facility. ! From 2000-2002, Ms. Giuffre lived and travelled with Jeffrey Epstein and stayed at his various mansions in New York (9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021-4102), Palm Beach (358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, New Mexico (Zorro Ranch, 49 Zorro Ranch Rd., Stanley, New Mexico 87056), U.S.V.I. (Little St. James, 6100 Red Hook Quarters, Suite B3, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 48 7 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802), and Paris (22 Avenue Foch Apt 2DD, Paris, France 75116). ! Jeffrey Epstein also rented a residence for Ms. Giuffre in Royal Palm Beach, the exact address and dates of rental are in the possession, custody and control of Jeffrey Epstein. Tony Figueroa, James Michael Austrich and a few other individuals for whom Ms. Giuffre cannot recall the names of, stayed with her from time to time at the residence that Jeffrey Epstein rented. ! Ms. Giuffre’s parents’ address was 12959 Rackley Road, Loxahatchee, Florida 33470, and she lived there from time to time with her mother, her father, and her brothers. ! 2C Quentin St. Basshill NSW in approximately 2003, but she is not certain of that date. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! N. Paramentata, NSW from approximately 2003 - 2005, but she is not certain of those dates. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! Blue Bay, NSW from approximately 2005 - 2008 but is not certain of those dates. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 3 Elk St., NSW from approximately 2008 - 2009 but is not certain of those dates. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 50 Robertson Road, Basshill, NSW, from 2009 through January of 2010. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 48 8 ! 50 Bundeena Rd., Glenning Valley, NSW from approximately January of 2010 through October 13, 2013. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 5035 Winchester Drive, Titusville, FL from approximately November 6, 2013 to October of 2014. At this location, Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. ! 1270 J. Street, Penrose, CO 81240, from approximately October of 2014 through October of 2015. At this location Ms. Giuffre lived with Robert Giuffre. 2. Identify any email address, email account, cellphone number and cellphone provider, social media account and login or screen name, text or instant messaging account name and number, that You have used, applied for or been supplied between 1998 and the present. Response to Interrogatory No. 2 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it violates Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overly broad and seeks information solely to harass and intimidate Ms. Giuffre. For the period of 1998 to the present Ms. Giuffre provides the following information. During the time period that she was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant, the defendant provided Ms. Giuffre with a cellphone so that she could be reached by the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein at any time. Defendant is in possession of the information relating to this cellphone that she provided to Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is responding with the information she can presently recall, but to the extent she obtains additional information she will supplement this response. Ms. Giuffre’s e-mail address is robiejennag@y7mail.com. She can recall having the following cell numbers (321) 271-4948, +61414651273, 0407.433.252. Ms. Giuffre had a Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 48 9 Facebook account for a short time but it is no longer active. Per our representations during the March 21, 2015 meet and confer phone call, we are working diligently to find information to supplement the above information, and once that information is obtained, Plaintiff will serve supplemental responses. 3. Identify each attorney who has represented you from 1998 to the present, the dates of any such representation, and the nature of the representation. Response to Interrogatory No. 3 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory as it seeks privileged information relating to her representation by attorneys. o Ms. Giuffre responds as follows: Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi (among other possible Podhurst Orseck, P.A. attorneys) represented Ms. Giuffre as a party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656-CIV-Marra/Johnson, starting on January 27, 2009. o Stan Pottinger, David Boies, and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (“Boies Schiller”) attorneys) represented Ms. Giuffre as a non-party in the litigation styled as Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz, Case no. 15-000072, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, starting in February, 2015. o Brad Edwards (along with other Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. (“Farmer Jaffe”) attorneys), Paul Cassell, Stan Pottinger, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represent Ms. Giuffre as a party in the litigation styled Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433- RWS in the Southern District of New York, the complaint of which was filed in September, 2015. o Paul Cassell represents Ms. Giuffre as a non-party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, Southern District of Florida, starting in May of 2014. o Brad Edwards (along with other Farmer, Jaffe attorneys) represents Ms. Giuffre as a non-party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, Southern District of Florida, starting in 2011. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 48 10 o Brad Edwards provided Ms. Giuffre with legal advice concerning media inquiries Ms. Giuffre had received starting in 2011. o Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards (along with other Farmer, Jaffe, attorneys), Stan Pottinger, David Boies (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represented Ms. Giuffre regarding investigations into potential legal action starting in the second half of 2014. o Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards (along with other Farmer, Jaffe, attorneys), Stan Pottinger, David Boies, and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represent Ms. Giuffre as a cooperating witness with regard to a law enforcement investigation, starting in May, 2015. o Paul Cassell provided Ms. Giuffre with legal advice concerning potential legal action starting in early 2011. o Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards (along with other Farmer, Jaffe, attorneys) represented Ms. Giuffre and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse Silence, starting in October, 2014. o Meg Garvin (law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, and the Executive Director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute ) represented Ms. Giuffre and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse Silence, starting in October, 2014. o Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represented Ms. Giuffre and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse Silence, starting in February 2015. 4. Identify each Communication, including the transmission of any Document, that You or Your Attorneys have had with any local, state or federal law enforcement agent or agency, whether in the United States or any other country, whether in Your capacity as a purported victim, witness, or perpetrator of any criminal activity, and whether as a juvenile or as an adult, including without limitation: a. the date of any such Communication; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 48 11 b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the format of any such Communication; c. the identities of all persons involved in the Communication, including the identity of the law enforcement agency with whom the agent is or was affiliated; d. the case number associated with any such Communication; e. the subject matter of any such Communication; f. the disposition of any case associated with any such Communication, irrespective of whether the matter was sealed, expunged or later dismissed. Response to Interrogatory No. 4 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks protected information regarding confidential investigations. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to the extent this seeks information regarding sexual assaults that occurred prior to her involvement with the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre responds as follows: Ms. Giuffre, in accordance with the Court’s direction at the hearing on April 21, 2016, has submitted documents to the Court for In Camera review. Ms. Giuffre met with the FBI on or about March 17, 2011. Ms. Giuffre also corresponded with Maria Villafano from the U.S. Attorney’s office and that correspondence has been produced. 5. Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 48 12 photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or independent consultant to the same, including: a. the date of any such Communication; b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the format of any such Communication; c. the identities of all persons involved in such Communication, including the identity of the media organization with whom the agent is or was affiliated; d. the article title, date of publication, and means of publication of any article, report, or re-printing of any such Communication made by You or Your Attorneys; e. the amount of Income that You and/or Your Attorneys received in exchange for any such Communication; f. the dates on which You and/or Your Attorneys received any such Income for any such Communication. Response to Interrogatory No. 5 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects in that this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 48 13 6. Identify any “false statements” attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell which were “published globally, including within the Southern District of New York” as You contend in paragraph 9 of Count 1 of Your Complaint, including: a. the exact false statement; b. the date of its publication; c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly false statement; d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other form of media. Response to Interrogatory No. 6 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre further objects because the information requested above is in the possession of Defendant who has failed to comply with her production obligations in this matter. 7. State whether You believe that You have ever been defamed by anyone other than Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, as to each alleged act of Defamation, state a. the exact false statement; b. the date of its publication; c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly false statement; Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 48 14 d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other form of media. Response to Interrogatory No. 7 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks information protected by the attorney client and work product privileges. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it is not limited in time or to the subject nature of this litigation. 8. Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States of America, 08-cv-80736-KAM, as the “high-profile non-party individuals” to whom Mr. Jeffrey Epstein sexually trafficked You, “including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,” including as to each episode of alleged sexual trafficking: a. the date of any such sexual trafficking; b. the location of any such sexual trafficking; c. any witnesses to any such sexual trafficking; d. any Income You received in exchange for such sexual trafficking; and e. any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such sexual trafficking. Response to Interrogatory No. 8 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 48 15 product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Additionally, Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory because naming some such individuals would jeopardize her physical safety based on credible threats to the same. Ms. Giuffre refers to the list of witnesses identified in her Revised Rule 26 Disclosures. 9. Identify any Employment You have had from 1996 until the present, including without limitation, the name of Your employer or the name of any Person who engaged You for such Employment, the address and telephone number for any such Employment, the beginning and ending dates of any such Employment, Your job title in such Employment, and Your Income from such Employment. Response to Interrogatory No. 9 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is not relevant to this case. Ms. Giuffre responds as follows: ! Ms. Giuffre worked at Mar a Lago as a locker room attendant for the spa area. Records produced in this case identify the date of employment as 2000, and she recalls being there in the summer. Ms. Giuffre previously attempted to gather employment records from Mar-A-Lago. See Giuffre002726. She earned approximately $9 per hour. The address is 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, with the telephone number of 561-832-2600 ! Ms. Giuffre worked at Roadhouse Grill as a waitress in approximately 2002, but Ms. Giuffre is unsure of the exact dates of employment. Her wages primarily consisted of tips. Ms. Giuffre does not recall the location of Roadhouse Grill. A Google search for Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 48 16 the same yields an address at 8865 Southern Blv., West Palm Beach, FL 33411 and a telephone number of 561-651-0400. ! Ms. Giuffre worked at Employment Training and Recruitment Australia from approximately 2005 through January of 2006, but Ms. Giuffre is unsure of the exact dates of employment. Ms. Giuffre was a receptionist earing approximately $15 per hour to the best of her recollection. Upon information and belief, this corporation is currently located in a different location from the location at which Ms. Giuffre was employed. Upon information and belief, based on an internet search, the new location of this entity is 123 Donniforn Street, Gofford NSW 2250, with a telephone number of 02-4323-1233 ! Ms. Giuffre worked at Gemma Catering/Wedding Receptions in approximately 2004. She received approximately $10/hr. She does not recall the name of the proprietor nor its location. ! Ms. Giuffre worked at Manway Logistics in approximately 2003. Ms. Giuffre recalls it located in or around Sydney, Australia. An internet search yielded an address of 246 Miller Road, Villawood NSW 2163, and a phone number of 02-8707-2300. Ms. Giuffre worked as a receptionist and earned approximately $20/hr. 10. Identify any Income from any source other than Your Employment that You have received from January 1, 1996 until the present, including the Person or entity providing such Income, the amount of the Income, the dates on which any such Income was received, and the nature of the Income, whether a loan, investment proceeds, legal settlement, asset sale, gift, or other source. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 48 17 Response to Interrogatory No. 10 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overly broad and seeks confidential financial information. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information covered by confidentiality provisions. Ms. Giuffre objects to this information in that any payment information for the sexual trafficking she endured at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell is in the possession, custody and control of the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Giuffre is in possession of a responsive document that contains a confidentiality provision. If Defendant obtains, and produces to Ms. Giuffre, a written waiver from her co￾conspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision, freeing Ms. Giuffre from any liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she will produce the document. 11. Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell “past and future lost wages and past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings – precise amounts yet to be computed, but not less than $5,000,000.” Response to Interrogatory No. 11 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it prematurely seeks expert witness disclosures. Ms. Giuffre incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures, which includes her computation of damages. 12. Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 48 18 physical, mental or emotional condition, that You suffered from subsequent to any Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including: a. the Health Care Provider’s name, address, and telephone number; b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment; d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis; e. the medical expenses to date; f. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid for the medical expenses; and g. for each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A. Response to Interrogatory No. 12 Pursuant to this Court’s Order, Ms. Giuffre will provide information for health care providers from 1999 through the present. Ms. Giuffre continues to search for medical providers that appear in documents. ! Dr. Steven Olson, St. Thomas More Hospital, 1338 Phay Avenue, Canon City, CO 81212, treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the medical records produced at GIUFFE005342-5346. ! Dr. Mona Devansean, 11476 Okeechobee Blvd., Royal Palm Beach, FL. It appears Dr. Devansean is retired. We produced the letter we sent her as well as a document indicating the practice was closed at GIUFFRE005335- GIUFFRE0005338. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 48 19 ! Dr. Chris Donahue, 12 Clifton Village Shopping Centre, Captain Hook Hwy, Clifton Beach, QLD 4879 is believed to have treated Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre has sent a release to Dr. Donahue, and is awaiting a response. ! Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee Majaliyana at The Entrance Medical Centre, 120 The Entrance Road, The Entrance 2261, 43321300, treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the records produced at GIUFFRE005315-5322. ! Dr. Wah Wah, Central Coast Family Medicine, Unit 2, 17 Anzac Rd., Tuggerah 2259, 0243518777 treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the medical records produced at GIUFFRE005339-5341. ! Dr. M. Sellathurai (a/k/a Dr. Sella), Buss Hill Plaza, Medical Center, 753 Hume Highway, Bass Hill NSW 2197, 02297555292 treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the medical records produced at GIUFFRE005089-5091. ! Royal Oaks Medical Center, 1855 Knox McRae Dr., Titusville, FL 32780, was believed to have possibly treated Ms. Giuffre, but Medical Center responded stating that they have no records for Ms. Giuffre, see GIUFFRE005347-5349. ! Dr. Carol Hayek, Denison Road, Dulwich Hill, NSW 2203. Records have been requested, but thus far have been denied. Another medical release was sent and is pending. ! New York Presbyterian Hospital treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the medical records produced at Giuffre003258-3298. ! Campbelltown Hospital, 8 Moncrleff [illegible] Close, St. Helens treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the medical records produced at Giuffre003193-3257. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 48 20 ! Sydney West Hospital treated Ms. Giuffre as described in the medical records produced at Giuffre003291-3298. ! Westmead Hospital treated Ms. Giuffre on as described in the medical records produced at GIUFFRE003291-003298. ! As Defendant requested, Medical releases have been provided for: o Dr. Karen Kutikoff o Wellington Imaging Associates, PA o Growing Together 13. Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including: a. the Health Care Provider’s name, address, and telephone number; b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided; c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment; d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis; e. the medical expenses to date; f. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid for the medical expenses; and g. For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A. Response to Interrogatory No. 13 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 48 21 abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. 14. Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999, including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event. Response to Interrogatory No. 14 Ms. Giuffre objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex abuse victim. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a period prior to the sexual abuse at issue in this matter for a period when she was a minor child from the time Ms. Giuffre was born until she was 15. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is sought solely to harass, and intimidate Ms. Giuffre who is a victim of sexual abuse by the defendant. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 48 22 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 1-14, above. Response to Request No. 1 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that Defendant’s interrogatories violate Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, incorporating the interrogatories that total 59 subparts, and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex abuse victims, and is meant for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim. Subject to and without waving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre is withholding production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege, and the public interest privilege. Ms. Giuffre is also withholding electronic renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children. Subjection to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement her production. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 48 23 2. All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Interrogatory Nos. 1-14 above. Response to Request No. 2 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that defendant’s interrogatories violate Local Rule 33.3. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney client, work product, and public interest, and other applicable privileges. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overly broad incorporating the interrogatories that total 59 subparts. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex abuse victims and is meant for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim. Subject to and without waving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre is withholding production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege, and the public interest privilege. Ms. Giuffre is also withholding electronic renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children. Subjection to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement her production. 3. All Documents from any law enforcement agency, whether local, state or federal, whether in the United States or elsewhere, which concern or relate to You in any way. These Documents should include, without limitation, any witness statements, including statements made by You. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 48 24 Response to Request No. 3 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney client, work product, public interest privilege and other applicable privileges. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is not limited in time period. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents that concern or relate to any currently ongoing investigation by any law enforcement agency under the public interest privilege and other applicable privileges. 4. All Documents reflecting any letter of engagement, any fee agreement, or any other type of writing reflecting an engagement of any attorney identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3. Response to Request No. 4 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense and other applicable privileges. Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents based on this objection. Specifically, Ms. Giuffre is withholding documents reflecting the engagements between herself and her attorneys she has engaged in relation to the above-captioned action and other actions as those documents involve privileged communications. 5. All Documents relating to any Communications occurring from 1998 to the present with any of the following individuals or with their attorneys, agents or representatives: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 48 25 a. Jeffrey Epstein; b. Ghislaine Maxwell c. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) disclosures; d. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No. 14; e. Sky Roberts; f. Lynn Roberts; g. Kimberley Roberts; h. Daniel LNU, half-brother of Plaintiff; i. Carol Roberts Kess; j. Philip Guderyon; k. Anthony Valladares; l. Anthony Figueroa; m. Ron Eppinger Response to Request No. 5 Ms. Giuffre objection to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly as it seeks documents relating to over 60 individuals, and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects because compliance with this request is unduly burdensome. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents to Ms. Giuffre’s request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 48 26 Giuffre and between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is sought solely to harass and intimidate Ms. Giuffre, and invade her privacy, by seeking her private communications with her various family members, including aunts, uncles and parents and siblings. Subject to and without waving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre is withholding production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege, and the public interest privilege. Ms. Giuffre is also withholding electronic renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children. Subjection to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement this production. 6. All photographs or video containing any image of You and the following individuals. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original, native format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy). a. Ghislaine Maxwell b. Alan Dershowitz c. Jeffrey Epstein d. Andrew Albert Christian Edward, the Duke of York (aka Prince Andrew) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 48 27 e. Ron Eppinger f. Bill Clinton g. Stephen Hawking h. Al Gore i. Any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No. 14. Response to Request No. 6 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents to Ms. Giuffre’s request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms. Giuffre and between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre does not have “original, native format,” as requested so she is producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control. 7. All photographs and video of You in any of Jeffrey Epstein’s properties, including, but not limited to: his home in Palm Beach, Florida; his home in New York City, New York; his ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Little Saint James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original, native format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 48 28 Response to Request No. 7 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents to Ms. Giuffre’s request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms. Giuffre and between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre does not have “original, native format,” as requested so she is producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control. The Defendant has documents responsive to this request that she should produce. 8. All photographs or video of You in any of Ms. Maxwell’s properties, including her home in London, England and her home in New York City, New York. To the extent You have such photographs or video in their original, native format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy). Response to Request No. 8 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents to Ms. Giuffre’s request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms. Giuffre and between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Giuffre. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 48 29 Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production. Ms. Giuffre does not have “original, native format,” as requested so she is producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control. The Defendant has documents responsive to this request that she should produce. 9. Any Documents reflecting rental agreements or purchase agreements for the residential addresses identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 1. Response to Request No. 9 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant to this action. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that the information regarding rental agreements for the apartments that Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein rented for her are in the Defendant’s possession, control and custody. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this production. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 48 30 10. All Documents relating to Your Employment and/or association with the Mar-a-Lago Club located in Palm Beach, Florida, including any application for Employment. Response to Request No. 10 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this production. 11. Any Document reflecting any confidentiality agreement by and between, or concerning, You and the Mar-a-Lago Club. Response to Request No. 10 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre has been unable to locate any such documents. 12. All Documents concerning any Employment by You from 1998 to the present or identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 9, including any records of Your Employment at the Roadhouse Grill in Palm Beach, Florida. Response to Request No. 12 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 48 31 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this production. 13. All Documents concerning any allegations of theft by You from the Roadhouse Grill in Palm Beach, Florida from 1999 – 2002. Response to Request No. 13 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks information solely to harass, embarrass, and intimidate Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it wrongfully characterizes a “theft by You”. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request as it seeks documents of sealed juvenile records, and the only means of obtaining such records are either through court order or illegal means. Ms. Giuffre has been unable to locate any such documents. 14. A copy of Your federal, state or local tax returns for the years 1998 to the present, whether from the United States or any other country. Response to Request No. 14 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 48 32 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant to this action. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks financial information from her when she was a minor child starting at age 14. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this production. 15. All Documents concerning Your attendance at or enrollment in any school or educational program of whatever type, from 1998 to the present. Response to Request No. 15 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that her school records from when she was a minor child are an invasion of privacy, and sought only to harass and embarrass her. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 48 33 privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this production. 16. Any diary, journal or calendar concerning Your activities between 1996 – 2002. Response to Request No. 16 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that the time period is overly broad and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary and copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks highly personal and sensitive material from a time when she was being sexually trafficked. Ms. Giuffre has been unable to locate any such documents. 17. All Documents relating to Your travel from the period of 1998 to the present, including, but not limited to a copy of Your passport that was valid for any part of that time period, any visa issued to You for travel, any visa application that You prepared or which was prepared on Your behalf, and travel itinerary, receipt, log, or Document (including any photograph) substantiating Your travel during that time period. Response to Request No. 17 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 48 34 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overly broad and not limited to travel records relevant to the abuse she suffered. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to this lawsuit. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this production. Per the agreements made in the March 21, 2016 meet and confer, we will attempt to locate and make copies of Plaintiff’s current passport book. 18. All Documents showing any payments or remuneration of any kind made by Jeffrey Epstein or any of his agents or associates to You from 1999 until the present. Response to Request No. 18 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. At this point in time, Ms. Giuffre has been unable to locate any such documents, but continues to search for responsive documents. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 48 35 19. Any Document reflecting a confidentiality agreement, settlement agreement, or any contractual agreement of any kind, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any attorneys for You and/or Mr. Epstein. Response to Request No. 19 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that the documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre is in possession of a responsive document that contains a confidentiality provision. As discussed during the March 21, 2016 meet and confer, If Defendant obtains, and produces to Ms. Giuffre, a written waiver from her co-conspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision, releasing Ms. Giuffre from any liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she will produce the document. 20. Any Document reflecting Your intent, plan or consideration of, asserting or threatening a claim or filing a lawsuit against another Person, any Document reflecting such a claim or lawsuit, including any complaint or draft complaint, or any demand for consideration with respect to any such claim or lawsuit against any Person. Response to Request No. 20 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of 48 36 Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense or any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects because this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks wholly privileged communications from other cases the logging of which on a privilege log would be unduly burdensome. As such, Ms. Giuffre is providing categorical privilege entries relating to those matters. At this point in time, Ms. Giuffre has not found any non-privileged documents responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents. 21. All Documents relating to Your driver’s license from 1998 – 2002. Response to Request No. 21 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. At this point in time, Ms. Giuffre has not found any documents responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents. 22. A copy of Your marriage license(s) from 1999 to the present. Response to Request No. 22 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 48 37 objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this request, and will continue to supplement this production. 23. All documents concerning Your naturalization application to Australia from 1999 to the present. Response to Request No. 23 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre has been unable to locate any such documents. 24. All Documents concerning Your Employment in Australia, including, but not limited to employment applications, pay stubs, Documents reflecting Your Income including any tax Documents. Response to Request No. 24 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, or Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of 48 38 any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks overly broad financial information not tailored to the sexual abuse and defamation issues in this case. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this request, and will continue to supplement this production. 25. All Documents concerning any massage therapist license obtained by You, including any massage therapy license issued in the United States, Thailand and/or Australia. Response to Request No. 25 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. At this point in time, Ms. Giuffre has not found any non-privileged documents responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents. 26. All Documents concerning any prescription drugs taken by You, including the prescribing doctor, the dates of said prescription, and the dates of any fulfillment of any such prescription. Response to Request No. 26 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of 48 39 Giuffre objects to this request in that it is not limited in date range in any way; therefore if she was on a prescription drug when she was 2 years old, she would have to produce that document. Ms. Giuffre also objects to this request in that it is not limited to prescription drugs she has taken as a result of the abuse she endured. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential medical records that are not relevant to this action. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and is producing non-privileged documents responsive to the Request limited to documents relating to prescription drugs relating to her treatment for sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, and relating to conditions or symptoms arising after Defendant’s defamatory statement, and will continue to supplement this production. 27. All Documents, written or recorded, which reference by name, or other description, Ghislaine Maxwell. Response to Request No. 27 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of 48 40 privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. 28. All Documents reflecting notes of, or notes prepared for, any statements or interviews in which You referenced by name or other description, Ghislaine Maxwell. Response to Request No. 28 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. At this point in time, Ms. Giuffre has not found any non-privileged documents responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents. 29. All Documents concerning any Communications by You or on Your behalf with any media outlet, including but not limited to the Daily Mail, Daily Express, the Mirror, National Enquirer, New York Daily News, Radar Online, and the New York Post, whether or not such communications were “on the record” or “off the record.” Response to Request No. 29 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of 48 41 produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. 30. All Documents concerning any Income received by You from any media outlet in exchange for Your statements (whether “on the record” or “off the record”) regarding Jeffery Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton or Ghislaine Maxwell or any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 14. Response to Request No. 30 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. 31. All Documents concerning any actual or potential book, television or movie deals concerning Your allegations about being a sex slave, including but not limited to a potential book by former New York Police Department detective John Connolly and writer James Patterson. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 48 42 Response to Request No. 31 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. 32. All manuscripts and/or other writings, whether published or unpublished, created in whole or in part by or in consultation with You, concerning, relating or referring to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell or any of their agents or associates. Response to Request No. 32 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of 48 43 33. All Documents concerning or relating to Victims Refuse Silence, the organization referred to in the Complaint, including articles of incorporation, any financial records for the organization, any Income You have received from the organization, and any Documents reflecting Your role within the organization or any acts taken on behalf of the Organization. Response to Request No. 33 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. 34. To the extent not produced in response to the above list of requested Documents, all notes, writings, photographs, and/or audio or video recordings made or recorded by You or of You at any time that refer or relate in any way to Ghislaine Maxwell. Response to Request No. 34 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of 48 44 product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected material. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. 35. All phone records, including text messages, emails, social media Communications, letters or any other form of Communication, from or to You or associated with You in any way from 1998 to the present, which concern, relate to, identify, mention or reflect Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, or any of the individuals identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 14. Response to Request No. 35 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents from “anyone associated with you” as that is vague and ambiguous. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of 48 45 Ms. Giuffre objects to this request to the extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected material. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. While Ms. Giuffre has produced her documents, Ms. Giuffre’s response does not include documents “from anyone associated with you” based on the above referenced objection. 36. All Documents relating to massages, including but not limited to any Documents reflecting the recruiting or hiring of masseuses, advertising for masseuses, flyers created for distribution at high schools or colleges, and records reflecting e-mails or calls to Persons relating to massages. Response to Request No. 36 Ms. Giuffre objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is not time limited in any way. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents. Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre has been unable to locate any such documents. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of 48 46 37. Statements or records from any bank into which You deposited money received from Jeffrey Epstein, any Person identified in Interrogatory No. 8 or 14, any witness disclosed in Your Rule 26(a) disclosures, any media organization or any employee or affiliate of any media organization. Response to Request No. 37 Ms. Giuffre objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it seeks personal financial information. Ms. Giuffre objects to this request in that it is overly broad as it has no time limitation. Subject to and without waiving the above objections, Ms. Giuffre has already produced documents Bates labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non￾privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her production. Dated: April 29, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of 48 47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 29, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s Second Amended Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests on the following: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley______ Sigrid McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-37 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 48 EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 89 *,8))5( 96 0$;:(// 'HSRVLWLRQ 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF WK6WUHHW6XLWH 'HQYHU&RORUDGR  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of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 (DVW/DV2ODV%RXOHYDUG 6XLWH )RUW/DXGHUGDOH)/ 3KRQH VPFFDZOH\#EVIOOSFRP $SSHDULQJRQEHKDOIRIWKH 3ODLQWLII 3DJH 1 $33($5$1&(6&RQWLQXHG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 15 1RQH 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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 20 ([KLELW7KH%LOOLRQDLUH V3OD\ER\&OXE %\9LUJLQLD5REHUWV 21 ([KLELW3ODLQWLII V5HVSRQVHDQG 22 2EMHFWLRQVWR'HIHQGDQW V)LUVW 6HWRI'LVFRYHU\5HTXHVWVWR 23 3ODLQWLIIUH*LXIIUHY0D[ZHOO 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of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 3DJH 1 ,MXVWZDQWHGWRPDNHVXUHWKDWZH UHFOHDUDQG, 2 WKLQNWKDWZHDUHWKDWWKLVGHSRVLWLRQLQWRWDOZLOO 3 EHWUHDWHGDVFRQILGHQWLDOXQWLOVXFKWLPHDVZHDUH 4 DEOHWRUHYLHZDQGGHGHVLJQDWH 5 060(11,1*(5<HV 6 05(':$5'62ND\ 7 (;$0,1$7,21 8 %<060(11,1*(5 9 4*RRGPRUQLQJ0V*LXIIUH 10 $*RRGPRUQLQJ/DXUD 11 4&DQ\RXSOHDVHVWDWH\RXUIXOOQDPH" 12 $9LUJLQLD/HH*LXIIUH 13 4$QGZKHUHGR\RXOLYHULJKWQRZ 14 0V*LXIIUH" 15 $ 16  17 4$OOULJKW$QGZKROLYHVZLWK\RXWKHUH" 18 $0\VRQP\RWKHUVRQP\GDXJKWHUP\ 19 KXVEDQGDQGP\LQODZV 20 4$QGZKHQGLG\RXUHWXUQWRWKH86IRU 21 WKLVYLVLW" 22 $,EHOLHYHLWZDVDURXQG7KXUVGD\WKH 23 WK,WKLQN 24 42ND\$QGZKRWUDYHOHGZLWK\RX" 25 $0\VHOI - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of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 3DJH 1 4$QGLI,DVN\RXKDYH\RXPHWDQ\IRUHLJQ 2 SUHVLGHQWVGR\RXXQGHUVWDQGZKDWWKDWTXHVWLRQ 3 PHDQV" 4 $<HV 5 4$QGZKDWLVWKHDQVZHUWRWKDWTXHVWLRQ" 6 $<HV 7 4$OOULJKW$QGLI,DVNHG\RXZKLFK 8 IRUHLJQSUHVLGHQWVKDYH\RXPHWGR\RXXQGHUVWDQG 9 ZKDWWKDWTXHVWLRQPHDQV" 10 $<HV 11 4:KDWLVWKHDQVZHUWRWKDWTXHVWLRQ" 12 $:KDWLVWKHQDPHRIWKHSHUVRQ" 13 4<HV:KRDUHWKHIRUHLJQSUHVLGHQWVWKDW 14 \RXKDYHPHW" 15 $,KRQHVWO\FDQ WUHPHPEHUKLVQDPHDWWKLV 16 WLPH, PDYHU\YLVXDOSHUVRQVR 17 4$OOULJKW&DQ\RXGHVFULEHKLPWKHQ" 18 $<HV+H V6SDQLVK 19 42ND\ 20 $7DOOGDUNKDLU 21 4$OOULJKW$Q\WKLQJHOVH" 22 $$QGKH VJRWDIRUHLJQWRQJXHDFFHQW 23 4$QGZKDWDJHDSSUR[LPDWHO\" 24 $:DV,RUZDVKH" 25 4:DVKH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of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 3DJH 1 \RXGRQ W 2 'R\RXKDYHDQ\UHDVRQWREHOLHYHWKDWDQ\ 3 RI\RXUSUHYLRXVVZRUQVWDWHPHQWVWKDW\RXKDYHPDGH 4 DUHQRWWUXH" 5 $1R 6 05(':$5'6,MXVWREMHFWDQGDVNWKDW 7 LIZH UHJRLQJWRDVNWKHZLWQHVVTXHVWLRQVDERXWDQ\ 8 RIKHUVWDWHPHQWVLQZKROHRULQSDUWWKDWWKH 9 ZLWQHVVEHDOORZHGWRVHHWKHVWDWHPHQWUHYLHZWKH 10 VWDWHPHQWDQGWKHQDQVZHU\RXUTXHVWLRQV 11 4%<060(11,1*(5<RXPD\DQVZHUWKH 12 TXHVWLRQ 13 $&DQ\RXUHDVNWKHTXHVWLRQ", PVRUU\ 14 4'R\RXKDYHDQ\UHDVRQWREHOLHYHWKDWDQ\ 15 RI\RXUSULRUVZRUQVWDWHPHQWVDUHXQWUXH" 16 $,KDYHQRUHDVRQWREHOLHYHWKDWP\SULRU 17 VWDWHPHQWVDUHXQWUXH 18 4+DVDQ\RQHWROG\RXWRVD\VRPHWKLQJWKDW 19 ZDVQRWWUXHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKLVFDVH" 20 $1RPD DP 21 4$OOULJKW, GOLNHWRVWDUWZLWKD 22 ODZVXLWWKDW\RXILOHGXQGHUWKHFDSWLRQ-DQH'RH 23 YHUVXV-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 24 'R\RXUHFDOOWKDWODZVXLW" 25 $,EHOLHYHVR Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 89 3DJH 1 ([KLELWPDUNHG 2 4%<060(11,1*(5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:DV0V0D[ZHOOVXHG 22 LQWKLV 23 $1RVKHZDVQ W 24 4LQWKHFDVHWKDW VUHSUHVHQWHGE\ 25 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 $1RVKHZDVQ W, PVRUU\IRU 2 LQWHUUXSWLQJ\RX%XWQRVKHZDVQRWVXHGDWWKLV 3 WLPHQR 4 4$QGZK\QRW" 5 05(':$5'6, GREMHFWDQGDVNWKH 6 ZLWQHVVQRWDQVZHUWKDWTXHVWLRQEHFDXVHWKDWZRXOG 7 EHSULYLOHJHGDWWRUQH\FOLHQWSULYLOHJHG 8 LQIRUPDWLRQWKDWZDVEHWZHHQ0V*LXIIUHDQGWKH 9 3RGKXUVW2UVHFNILUPDWWKDWWLPH 10 6R, PLQVWUXFWLQJ\RXQRWWRDQVZHU 11 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW 12 0V*LXIIUHGLG\RXPDNHDGHFLVLRQ\RXUVHOIZKHWKHU 13 RUQRWWRVXH0V0D[ZHOODVDSDUWRIWKLVODZVXLW 14 DJDLQVW-DQH'RHYHUVXV-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 15 $,WKLQN, YHEHHQDGYLVHGQRWWRDQVZHU 16 WKDWTXHVWLRQ 17 47KLVLVDGLIIHUHQWTXHVWLRQ 18 $2KRND\ 19 46R\RXUFRXQVHOFDQDVVHUWDSULYLOHJH 20 EXWWKDWTXHVWLRQGLGQRWFDOOIRUSULYLOHJHG 21 LQIRUPDWLRQ 22 05(':$5'6, 23 4%<060(11,1*(5, PDVNLQJDERXWZKDW 24 ZKDW\RXGHFLGHGWRGR:KHWKHU\RXGHFLGHGWR 25 VXH0V0D[ZHOORUQRWDWWKHWLPH-DQH'RH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 89 3DJH 1 YHUVXV(SVWHLQZDVILOHG" 2 05(':$5'6$QG,GLVDJUHH$QG, 3 REMHFWWRWKLVLQYDGLQJWKHDWWRUQH\FOLHQW 4 SULYLOHJH 5 $QG, PLQVWUXFWLQJ\RXQRWWRDQVZHU 6 4%<060(11,1*(5&DQ\RXDQVZHUWKDW 7 TXHVWLRQZLWKRXWUHYHDOLQJDQ\DWWRUQH\FOLHQW 8 FRPPXQLFDWLRQVZKHWKHU\RXPDGHDGHFLVLRQWRILOHD 9 ODZVXLWRUQRW" 10 $, PJRLQJWRKDYHWROLVWHQWRP\DWWRUQH\ 11 DQGQRWDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQ 12 4$OOULJKW,ZRXOGOLNHWRVKRZ\RXVRPH 13 GRFXPHQWVWKDWZHUHILOHGLQZKDWZH OOFDOOWKH&95$ 14 FDVHWKH&ULPH9LFWLPV 5LJKWV$FWFDVH 15 'R\RXNQRZZKDW,PHDQE\WKDWUHIHUHQFH" 16 $,DPIDPLOLDUZLWKWKDW 17 42ND\, PJRLQJWRVWDUWZLWKRQHRQRU 18 DERXW'HFHPEHUWK:HZLOOPDUNLWDV 19 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 20 ([KLELWPDUNHG 21 05(':$5'67KDQN\RX 22 4%<060(11,1*(5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 22 05(':$5'67KDQN\RX 23 4%<060(11,1*(5'R\RXUHFRJQL]HWKLV 24 GRFXPHQW" 25 $<HV,GR $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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<HVWKHRQHZLWKWKH 22 EODFNER[\HV'R\RXEHOLHYHWKDWWRKDYH 23 FRQWDLQHG\RXUVLJQDWXUH" 24 $<HV 25 4$OOULJKW$QG\RXH[HFXWHGWKDWRQ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of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$JDLQLVWKHUHPRUH 6 WKDQRQHWUXWK0V5REHUWV" 7 $1RWKHUH VQRPRUHWKDQRQHWUXWK 8 4$OOULJKW6RDGRFXPHQWLQZKLFK\RX 9 VZRUHWKDW\RXZHUH\HDUVROGZKHQ\RXPHW 10 0V*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOLVDQXQWUXHVWDWHPHQW 11 FRUUHFW" 12 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 13 $,W VQRWWKDWLW VDQXQWUXHVWDWHPHQW 14 ,WZDVDPLVWDNH6RLWZDVQ WLQWHQWLRQDOO\WU\LQJ 15 WRVD\VRPHWKLQJWKDWZDVQ WWUXH,WZDVWRP\EHVW 16 NQRZOHGJHWKDW,WKRXJKWLWZDV$QGZKHQ,JRW 17 P\UHFRUGVIURP0DUD/DJR,ZDVDEOHWRILQGRXW 18 WKDWLWZDV$QGWKLVZDVHQWHUHGEHIRUH, 19 IRXQGRXWWKHDFWXDOGDWHVWKDW,GLGZRUNDW 20 0DUD/DJR 21 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\6RDGRFXPHQW 22 WKDW\RXILOHGXQGHURDWK 23 $8PKXP 24 4LVQRZ\RXEHOLHYHWREHXQWUXH 25 FRUUHFW" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ$VNHGDQG 2 DQVZHUHG 3 4%<060(11,1*(5<RXPD\DQVZHU 4 05(':$5'6$QVZHUDJDLQ 5 $$JDLQ,ZRXOGQ WVD\LW VXQWUXH8QWUXH 6 ZRXOGPHDQWKDW,ZRXOGKDYHOLHG$QG,GLGQ WOLH 7 7KLVZDVP\EHVWNQRZOHGJHDWWKHWLPH$QG,GLGP\ 8 YHU\EHVWWRWU\WRSLQSRLQWWLPHSHULRGVJRLQJEDFN 9 VXFKDORQJWLPHDJR 10 ,WZDVQ WXQWLO,IRXQGWKHIDFWVWKDW, 11 ZRUNHGDW0DUD/DJRLQWKDW,ZDVDEOHWR 12 ILJXUHWKDWRXW 13 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGDSSUR[LPDWHO\ZKHQ 14 GLG\RXOHDUQWKRVHIDFWVDERXWWKHGDWHV\RXZRUNHG 15 DW0DUD/DJR" 16 $,ZRXOGVD\LWZDVPLG 17 40LGLVWKHILUVWWLPH\RXEHFDPH 18 DZDUHRIWKHGDWHV 19 $,GRQ WNQRZWKHH[DFW 20 4,I\RXFRXOGMXVWOHWPHILQLVK 21 $, PVRUU\ 22 47KDW VDOOULJKW$SSUR[LPDWHO\PLG 23 ZKHQ\RXOHDUQHGWKHWUXHGDWHVWKDW\RXKDGZRUNHG 24 DW0DUD/DJR" 25 $7KDW VFRUUHFW6RUU\ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 89 3DJH 1 4$QGEDVHGRQWKHIDFWWKDW\RXOHDUQHGWKH 2 IDFW\RXKDGZRUNHGDW0DUD/DJRLQ\RX 3 EHFDPHDZDUHLQPLG 4 $8PKXP 5 4WKDW\RXKDGPHW0V0D[ZHOOLQ 6 FRUUHFW" 7 $7KDW V 8 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 9 $7KDW VFRUUHFW 10 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW$QG\RX 11 EHFDPHDZDUHLQPLGWKDW\RXZHUHQRW\HDUV 12 ROGZKHQ\RXPHW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOFRUUHFW" 13 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 14 $7KDW VFRUUHFW 15 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\$QGZKR 16 SURYLGHG\RXWKRVH0DUD/DJRUHFRUGVLQ 17 DSSUR[LPDWHO\PLG" 18 05(':$5'6, PJRLQJWRREMHFW 19 $QGWRWKHH[WHQWWKDWWKLVLQYDGHVWKH 20 DWWRUQH\FOLHQWSULYLOHJHLILWZDV\RXUDWWRUQH\V 21 WKDW\RXVSRNHWRDQGOHDUQHGWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQRU 22 UHFHLYHGWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKHQ\RX UH 23 LQVWUXFWHGQRWWRDQVZHU 24 $,FDQQRWDQVZHUWKDWTXHVWLRQ 25 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG\RX\RXUVHOIORRN 3DJH 1 DWUHFRUGVLQWKHPLGGOHRIUHJDUGOHVVRIZKR 2 VKRZHGWKHPWR\RX" 3 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ$QGWRWKH 4 H[WHQWWKDWWKH\ZHUHVKRZHGWR\RXRUVKDUHGE\DQ\ 5 RI\RXUODZ\HUV\RX UHLQVWUXFWHGQRWWRDQVZHUWKH 6 TXHVWLRQ,WLQYDGHVWKHDWWRUQH\FOLHQWSULYLOHJH 7 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG\RXORRNDW 8 0DUD/DJRUHFRUGVLQWKHPLGGOHRI\RXUVHOI" 9 05(':$5'66KH VQRWDQVZHULQJWKH 10 TXHVWLRQ 11 060(11,1*(52QZKDWJURXQGVLVVKHQRW 12 DQVZHULQJWKHTXHVWLRQ" 13 05(':$5'6,MXVWWROG\RXLWLQYDGHV 14 WKHDWWRUQH\FOLHQWSULYLOHJH,IVKHOHDUQHG 15 ,ZLOOLQVWUXFWKHULIVKHOHDUQHGE\VRPH 16 RWKHUZD\WKDQKHUDWWRUQH\VVKDULQJWKHLQIRUPDWLRQ 17 ZLWKKHUWKHQVKHFDQDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQ 18 4%<060(11,1*(5, PDVNLQJ\RXQRWWR 19 WHOOPHZKHWKHU\RXUDWWRUQH\VVKRZHG\RXWKHUHFRUG 20 , PDVNLQJ\RXQRWWRWHOOPHWKHVRXUFHRIWKH 21 UHFRUG 22 , PDVNLQJ\RXLI\RXSHUVRQDOO\LQWKH 23 PLGGOHRIORRNHGDW0DUD/DJRUHFRUGV" 24 05(':$5'66DPHREMHFWLRQ 25 6DPHLQVWUXFWLRQ 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5, PJRLQJWRVKRZ\RX 2 DQH[KLELWILOHGRQ,EHOLHYHRQRUDERXW 3 )HEUXDU\WKRI'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 4 ([KLELWPDUNHG 5 05(':$5'67KDQN\RX 6 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\$QGDJDLQLI 2 \RXORRNWRWKHODVWSDJHRIWKHGRFXPHQW 3 SDUDJUDSK 4 $7KHODVWSDJH" 5 4<HVWKHYHU\ODVW 6 $\HV 7 4$OOULJKW,WVD\VLQSDUDJUDSK, 8 GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJ 9 LVWUXHDQGFRUUHFWULJKW" 10 $<HV 11 4$QGLWZDVH[HFXWHGRQRUDERXWWKH 12 WKGD\RI)HEUXDU\FRUUHFW" 13 $,W VDELWVPXGJHGEXWLWNLQGRIORRNV 14 OLNHD 15 4$OOULJKW$QGWKHQWKHUH VDVLJQDWXUH 16 EORFNWKDW VUHGDFWHGWKDWVD\V-DQH'RHFRUUHFW" 17 $&RUUHFW 18 4'R\RXEHOLHYHWKDW\RXVLJQHGWKLV 19 GRFXPHQWDQGLWZDVODWHUFRYHUHGXSE\WKDWEORFN" 20 $<HV 21 4$OOULJKW$QGDJDLQLVWKHUHDQ\WKLQJ 22 LQWKLVGRFXPHQWWKDW\RXEHOLHYHWRGD\WRQRWEH 23 WUXH" 24 05(':$5'6,MXVWDVNWKDW\RXUHDG 25 WKURXJKWKHHQWLUHGRFXPHQWDQGDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 89 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5+DYH\RXVHHQWKLV 2 GRFXPHQWEHIRUH0V*LXIIUH" 3 $, PVXUH,KDYHEXWLW VDOZD\VJRRGWR 4 UHIUHVK\RXUPHPRU\MXVWORRNLQJRYHUVRPHWKLQJ 5 4$OOULJKW 6 3DXVH 7 $7KDQN\RXIRUJLYLQJPHWLPHWRUHDGWKDW 8 RYHU 9 4&HUWDLQO\6RKDYH\RXKDGDFKDQFHWR 10 UHDGLWQRZ" 11 $<HV 12 4$OOULJKW$QGZKDWSDUWVRIWKLV 13 GRFXPHQWVZRUQE\\RXXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\DUH 14 QRWWUXH" 15 $$JDLQWKHRQO\WKLQJWKDW,VHHLVWKH 16 PLVWDNHWKDW,PDGH,ILUVWPHW(SVWHLQZKHQ,ZDV 17 \HDUVROG 18 42ND\$QGWKDW VLQSDUDJUDSK" 19 $7KDW VLQSDUDJUDSKRQWKHILUVWSDJH 20 4$OOULJKW$QGHYHU\WKLQJHOVH\RX 21 EHOLHYHWREHWUXH" 22 $<HV 23 42ND\,I,FRXOGQRZWXUQWRZKDW, OO 24 PDUNDV'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 25 ([KLELWPDUNHG 3DJH 1 7+('(321(177KDQN\RX 2 05(':$5'67KDQN\RX 3 060(11,1*(5,WKLQN,KDYHRQHPRUH 4 060F&$:/(<,W VRND\LI\RXGRQ W 5 060(11,1*(5,GRQ WWKLQN,KDYHDOO 6 RIWKHP 7 4%<060(11,1*(5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$OOULJKW 15 0V*LXIIUHDJDLQLI\RXFRXOGWXUQWRWKHODVW 16 SDJHRIWKLVGRFXPHQW$QGGR\RXVHHDVLJQDWXUHRQ 17 WKDWSDJH" 18 $,GR 19 4:KRVHVLJQDWXUHLVWKDW" 20 $7KDWLVPLQH 21 4$QGDSSUR[LPDWHO\ZKHQGLG\RXVLJQWKDW 22 GRFXPHQW" 23 $([HFXWHGWKLVWKGD\RI1RYHPEHU 24 4$OOULJKW6R\RXVLJQHGWKDWRQ 25 1RYHPEHUWKFRUUHFW" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 $&RUUHFW 2 4$OOULJKW$QGWKDWZDVXQGHUSHQDOW\RI 3 SHUMXU\FRUUHFW" 4 $&RUUHFW 5 4$OOULJKW,I,FRXOGQRZWXUQWRZKDW 6 ZH OOPDUNDV'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 7 ([KLELWPDUNHG 8 05(':$5'67KDQN\RX 9 060F&$:/(<7KDQNV 10 4%<060(11,1*(5'R\RXUHFRJQL]HWKLV 11 GRFXPHQW0V*LXIIUH" 12 $,GR 13 4$OOULJKW:KDWGR\RXEHOLHYHWKLV 14 GRFXPHQWWREH" 15 $,EHOLHYHWKLVLVZKHQ,VSRNHWRWKH)%, 16 42ND\$QGGR\RXUHPHPEHUDERXWZKHQ\RX 17 VSRNHWRWKH)%," 18 $,WVD\V'DWHRIHQWU\-XO\WK 19 4'R\RXEHOLHYHWKDW\RXVSRNHWRWKH)%, 20 LQ" 21 $,WKRXJKWLWZDVZKHQ,WDONHGWR 22 WKHP 23 42ND\, PJRLQJWRGLUHFW\RXUDWWHQWLRQ 24 WRWKHERWWRPRIWKDWSDJH 25 $<HV Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 89 3DJH 1 47KHILUVWSDJH'R\RXVHHWKDW" 2 $<HV 3 47KHODVWIHZOLQHVWKHUHKDYHDQRWKHU 4 GDWH 5 $2K\HVLQYHVWLJDWLRQRI\HV 6 4$OOULJKW 7 $6RWKDWPDNHVVHQVHRND\ 8 42ND\:KDWGR\RXXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWREH" 9 $QGLILWUHIUHVKHV\RXUUHFROOHFWLRQDERXWZKHQ\RX 10 VSRNHWRWKH)%,MXVWOHWXVNQRZ 11 $<HDK0DUFKWKVRXQGVPRUHULJKW 12 WKDQ 13 42ND\$QGZKHUHGLG\RXVSHDNWRWKHP" 14 $,EHOLHYHWKLVZDVLQWKHRIILFHRIWKH 15 FRQVXODWH$PHULFDQ&RQVXODWHLQ6\GQH\ 16 46\GQH\$XVWUDOLD" 17 $6\GQH\$XVWUDOLD 18 42ND\$QG\RXZHUHWKHUHLQSHUVRQZLWK 19 WKHVH)%,DJHQWV" 20 $&RUUHFW 21 4$QGZHUHWKH\WDNLQJQRWHVZKHQWKH\VSRNH 22 WR\RX" 23 $<HV 24 4:HUHWKH\UHFRUGLQJWKHLQWHUYLHZWR\RXU 25 NQRZOHGJH" 3DJH 1 $,EHOLHYHWKH\ZHUH 2 42ND\+DYH\RXKDGDFKDQFHWRUHYLHZ 3 WKLVUHSRUW" 4 $QG,ZLOOPDNHQRWHIRUWKHUHFRUGWKDW 5 WKHUHDUHREYLRXVO\PDQ\SODFHVWKDWDUHEODFNHG 6 RXW 7 $<HDK 8 4RUZKLWHGRXW,VWKDWIDLU" 9 $<HV 10 4$OOULJKW+DYH\RXKDGDFKDQFHWR 11 UHYLHZWKLVRQHZLWKZKLWHGRXWSRUWLRQVRILWEHIRUH 12 WRGD\" 13 $<HV 14 4$OOULJKW$QG\RXXQGHUVWRRGZKHQ\RX 15 ZHUHVSHDNLQJWRWKH)%,WKDWWKH\ZHUHIHGHUDO 16 DJHQWVFRUUHFW" 17 $<HV 18 4$QGWKDW\RXZHUHVXSSRVHGWRWHOOWKHP 19 WKHWUXWKFRUUHFW" 20 $$EVROXWHO\ 21 4$QGGR\RXEHOLHYHWKDW\RXGLGLQIDFW 22 WHOOWKHPWKHWUXWK" 23 $7RWKHEHVWRIP\NQRZOHGJH$JDLQZKHQ 24 LWFRPHVWRGDWHVDQGWLPHV,ZDVREYLRXVO\RII 25 %XWHYHU\WKLQJHOVHLVDEVROXWHO\SHUFHQWWUXH 3DJH 1 42ND\$QGKDYH\RXUHYLHZHGDQ\KDYH 2 \RXDWDQ\WLPHUHYLHZHGWKLVGRFXPHQWZLWKRXWWKRVH 3 SRUWLRQVZKLWHGRXW" 4 $,GRQ WEHOLHYH, YHVHHQWKLVGRFXPHQW 5 ZLWKRXWWKHSRUWLRQV 6 42ND\6R\RXGRQ WNQRZIRUH[DPSOH 7 ZKDW VEHKLQGWKRVHRWKHUWKDQZKDW\RXUHFDOO 8 $1R 9 4KDYLQJWROGWKH)%,DWWKHWLPH 10 FRUUHFW" 11 $7KDW VFRUUHFW 12 42ND\, PJRLQJWRVKRZ\RXDQHZ 13 GRFXPHQW 14 $2ND\ 15 4<RXFDQMXVWSXWWKDWWRWKHVLGH 16 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 17 ([KLELWPDUNHG 18 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW 19 05(':$5'67KDQNV 20 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGGR\RXUHFRJQL]H 21 WKLVGRFXPHQW" 22 $<HV 23 4$QGZKDWGR\RXXQGHUVWDQGLWWREH" 24 $7KLVZDVDSKRQHFRQYHUVDWLRQWKDW,KDG 25 EHWZHHQ-DFN6FDURODDQG%UDG(GZDUGV $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 89 3DJH 1 42ND\$QGWKHQWKHODVWWKHODVW 2 GRFXPHQW,KRSHLV 3 060(11,1*(57KHELJRQH 4 ([KLELWPDUNHG 5 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 WLPHVKH 2 060(11,1*(56KHPDGHWKHUHFRUGYHU\ 3 FOHDU7KDQN\RX6KHGRHVQ WQHHG\RXWRPDNHD 4 UHFRUG 5 05(':$5'6, PQRWPDNLQJUHFRUGVEXW 6 \RX UHPDNLQJWKLVODVWORQJHU7KHUH VQRQHHGIRU 7 WKLV7KLVGRHVQ WKDYHWREHDQXQSOHDVDQWSURFHVV 8 ,ZDQWKHUWRKHOS\RX 9 060(11,1*(5,GRQ WILQGLW 10 XQSOHDVDQW, PVRUU\LI\RXGR 11 05(':$5'62ND\:HOOWKHQ,REMHFW 12 WRWKDWODVWVHULHVRITXHVWLRQVWRWKHH[WHQWWKDW 13 VKHZDVXQDEOHWRORRNDWZKDW\RXZDQWHGKHUWRORRN 14 DW 15 4%<060(11,1*(5,ZRXOGOLNHWRQH[W 16 WXUQWRDGRFXPHQWILOHGRQ0DUFKWKRIWKLV\HDU 17 2UDFWXDOO\OHWPHUHSKUDVHWKDW$GRFXPHQWGDWHG 18 0DUFKWKRIWKLV\HDUZKLFKZHZLOOPDUNDV 19 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 20 ([KLELWPDUNHG 21 4%<060(11,1*(5'R\RXUHFRJQL]HWKLV 22 GRFXPHQW0V*LXIIUH" 23 $<HV,GR 24 4$OOULJKW$QGZKDWLV\RXUXQGHUVWDQGLQJ 25 RIZKDWWKLVGRFXPHQWUHSUHVHQWV" Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of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 7 4%<060(11,1*(5,I\RXFDQWDNHDORRN 8 DWWKDW 9 $7KDQN\RX 10 4$QGZKLOHZH UHDWLW, PJRLQJWRJLYH 11 \RX'HIHQGDQW V([KLELWVR\RXFDQORRNDWWKHP 12 WRJHWKHU 13 ([KLELWPDUNHG 14 4%<060(11,1*(5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 23 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGGR\RXUHFRJQL]H 24 WKLVGRFXPHQW" 25 $<HV $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 89 3DJH 1 VHUYHGRQ$SULOWK" 2 $,EHOLHYH,KDYHVHHQWKLV 3 4$QG\RXZHUHKHUHLQWKH86ODVW)ULGD\" 4 $<HV 5 46R\RXVDZLWLQSHUVRQFRUUHFW" 6 $<HV,ZDVORRNLQJDWDORWRIGRFXPHQWV 7 RQ)ULGD\ 8 42ND\ 9 $,EHOLHYHWKLVFRXOGGHILQLWHO\EHRQH, 10 ORRNHGDW 11 4$OOULJKW,I,FRXOGGLUHFW\RXU 12 DWWHQWLRQWROHWPHVHHLQWKDWGRFXPHQW 13 05(':$5'6([KLELW" 14 060(11,1*(58PKXP'HIHQGDQW V 15 ([KLELW 16 4%<060(11,1*(5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,VWKHUHDQ\RWKHU 16 SODFHWKDW\RXZRUHDXQLIRUPDQGJRWDFKHFNIURPLQ 17 WKH\HDUVIURP WR" 18 $,GLGZRUNDW3XEOL[DVDEDJJLUOEXW 19 WKDWZDVRQO\IRUDFRXSOHZHHNV,WKLQN 20 4:KLFK3XEOL[ZDVWKDW" 21 $,EHOLHYHLWZDVLQ/R[DKDWFKHH 22 42ND\'R\RXUHPHPEHUWKHVWUHHW" 23 $1R 24 4$OOULJKW$Q\ZKHUHHOVH\RXZRUHD 25 XQLIRUPDQGJRWDSD\FKHFN" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 89 3DJH 1 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 2 $8KP,GRQ WNQRZWREHKRQHVW 3 4%<060(11,1*(5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$QGZDV0LFKDHOOLYLQJ 19 ZLWK\RXDQG\RXUSDUHQWVDWWKHWLPH\RXVWDUWHGDW 20 0DUD/DJR" 21 $<HV 22 4$QGZKDWDGGUHVVZDV0LFKDHOOLYLQJZLWK 23 \RXDQG\RXUSDUHQWVDWWKHWLPH\RXVWDUWHGDW 24 0DUD/DJR" 25 $0\SDUHQWV DGGUHVV" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 89 3DJH 1 42ND\,I,FDQGLUHFW\RXUDWWHQWLRQEDFN 2 WR'HIHQGDQW V([KLELWDWSDJH$QGXQGHUWKH 3 KHDGLQJ5HVSRQVHWR,QWHUURJDWRU\1XPEHUGR\RX 4 VHHWKDWZKHUHLWVD\V 5 $<HV 6 40V-RIIUH\SURQRXQFLQJ*LXIIUH 7 H[FXVHPHUHVSRQGVDVIROORZV" 8 $<HV 9 42ND\,WVD\V\RXZRUNHGDVDORFNHUURRP 10 DWWHQGDQWIRUWKHVSDDUHDFRUUHFW" 11 $<HV 12 4$QGLWVD\VUHFRUGVSURGXFHGLQWKLVFDVH 13 LGHQWLI\WKHGDWHRIHPSOR\PHQWDVFRUUHFW" 14 $<HV 15 4:KDWUHFRUGVWKDWZHUHSURGXFHGLQWKLV 16 FDVHFDXVH\RXWREHOLHYHWKDWWKHHPSOR\PHQWEHJDQ 17 LQ" 18 $8KPLVWKLVJRLQJEDFNWRDQRWKHU 19 TXHVWLRQWKDW, PQRWDOORZHGWRDQVZHU" 20 41R 21 $,KDYHVHHQWKHGRFXPHQWVDQG,NQRZWKDW 22 P\HPSOR\PHQWQRZZDVLQ 23 4:KDWGRFXPHQWVGLG\RXVHHWKDWFDXVHG\RX 24 WRPDNHWKDWDQVZHU" 25 $7KH0DUD/DJRHPSOR\PHQWGRFXPHQWV 3DJH 1 4$UHWKH\\RXU0DUD/DJRHPSOR\PHQW 2 GRFXPHQWV" 3 $8P 4 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 5 $0\QDPHLVRQWKHUH 6 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\'R\RXEHOLHYH 7 WKHPWREH\RXU0DUD/DJRHPSOR\PHQWGRFXPHQWV" 8 $$VIDUDV,FDQWHOO 9 42ND\6R\RXZHUHDEOHWRUHYLHZ\RXU 10 0DUD/DJRHPSOR\PHQWGRFXPHQWV 11 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 12 4%<060(11,1*(5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<RXWROGWKHPHGLD 11 WKDW\RXPHWKHULQ RU " 12 05(':$5'6)RUP 13 $$JDLQ\HVDVFORVHDV,FDQUHPHPEHU 14 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGWKHPHGLD 15 SXEOLVKHGLQWKHQHZVSDSHUVWKDW\RXPHW*KLVODLQH 16 0D[ZHOOLQ RU FRUUHFW" 17 05(':$5'6)RUP 18 $<HVWKH\GLG 19 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGWKHQHZVPHGLD 20 SXEOLVKHGLQWKHQHZVSDSHUVZKDW\RXWROGWKHPZKLFK 21 LVWKDW\RXZHUHZKHQ\RXPHW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO 22 FRUUHFW" 23 05(':$5'6)RUP 24 $:KLFKLVZKDW,WUXO\WKRXJKWDWWKHWLPH 25 \HV $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5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$ERXWD\HDUDJR" 17 053$*/,8&$$UHZHDOOSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQ 18 WKLVGHSRVLWLRQRUMXVW 19 060F&$:/(<6DPHZD\\RXJX\VGLG 20 053$*/,8&$:HGLGQRW 21 060(11,1*(5,GLGQRW 22 060F&$:/(<<RXERWKREMHFWHG 23 060(11,1*(51R 24 053$*/,8&$1RZHGLGQ W 25 060F&$:/(<:HFDQJREDFNWKURXJKWKH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 89 3DJH 1 UHFRUG 2 053$*/,8&$:HVXUHFDQ 3 6RLIZH UHDOOSDUWLFLSDWLQJPD\EH, OO 4 KDYHDIHZTXHVWLRQVDWWKHHQGRIWKLV,WKLQNZH 5 VKRXOGOLPLWWKLVWRRQHODZ\HU$QG\RXUVWDWHPHQW 6 DERXWWZRODZ\HUVSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQWKHODVW 7 GHSRVLWLRQLVZURQJ 8 060F&$:/(<:HOO,UHFDOOWKDWVKHJRW 9 DPLFURSKRQHEHFDXVHVKHVDLGVKHZDVJRLQJWREH 10 REMHFWLQJ6R 11 053$*/,8&$,NQRZ6KHSXWRQD 12 PLFURSKRQHDQGGLGQ WVSHDNWKURXJKWKHZKROHWKLQJ 13 060F&$:/(<:HOOZHFDQWDNHDORRN 14 EDFNDWWKHUHFRUG<RXNQRZLW VQRWDSUREOHP 15 %UDGFDQPDNHWKHREMHFWLRQV 16 053$*/,8&$2ND\/HW VWDNHFDUHRI 17 LWWKDWZD\WKHQ 18 05(':$5'6&DQ\RXWHOOPHZKHQ\RX UH 19 DWDJRRGVWRSSLQJSRLQW" 20 060(11,1*(5,ZDVDERXWWRVD\LW V 21 EHHQDQKRXU 22 05(':$5'6<HDK 23 060(11,1*(56RWKLVZRXOGEHDJRRG 24 WLPHWRWDNHDEUHDN 25 05(':$5'62ND\7KDQNV 3DJH 1 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHRIIWKHUHFRUGDW 2  3 5HFHVVWDNHQIURPDPWR 4 DP 5 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHEDFNRQWKH 6 UHFRUGDW 7 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW 8 0V*LXIIUH\RXWHVWLILHGWKDW\RXILUVWEHFDPH 9 DZDUHWKDW\RX\RXUHPSOR\PHQWDW0DUD/DJREHJDQ 10 LQLQPLGFRUUHFW" 11 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 12 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HVKHUWHVWLPRQ\ 13 $,GRQ WNQRZH[DFWO\ZKHQ,WFRXOGEH 14 WRZDUGVWKHHQGRI,WFRXOGEHWRZDUGVWKH 15 EHJLQQLQJRI,MXVWNQRZWKDW, YHOHDUQHG 16 DERXWLWUHFHQWO\, PQRWWRRVXUHH[DFWO\ZKDW 17 GDWH,GLGOHDUQDERXWLW 18 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\%XWWR\RXU 19 PLQGLW VEHHQZLWKLQWKHODVWWRPRQWKVLV 20 WKDWIDLU" 21 $,ZRXOGQ WVD\PRQWKVQR,ZRXOG 22 MXVWVD\XSXQWLO,GRQ WNQRZZKHQ,ZDVVKRZQ 23 WKDWZKHQ,DFWXDOO\ILUVWVDZLWEXWLWZDVQ WD 24 \HDUDJR 25 46DZ\RXUHPSOR\PHQWUHFRUGVIURP 3DJH 1 0DUD/DJR" 2 $&RUUHFW 3 42ND\, PJRLQJWRVKRZ\RXDQH[KLELW 4 PDUNHGDV'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 5 ([KLELWPDUNHG 6 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 QH[WDV'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 2 ([KLELWPDUNHG 3 $7KDQN\RX 4 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW'R\RX 5 UHFRJQL]HWKLVGRFXPHQW" 6 $<HV 7 4:KDWLVWKLVGRFXPHQW" 8 $7KLVLVPHUHSO\LQJWRDGVIRUMREV 9 42ND\$QG\RXZHUHFRPPXQLFDWLQJZLWK 10 E\\RXUHPDLOFRUUHFW" 11 $<HV 12 4$OOULJKW$QG,DSRORJL]H7KLVRQH 13 DFWXDOO\KDVWKHUHVXPHDWWDFKHGWRDQHPDLO 14 $8PKXP 15 4'R\RXVHHWKDWWRZDUGVWKHEDFNRIWKH 16 GRFXPHQW" 17 $<HV,GR 18 42ND\6R 19 $6RUU\ 20 47RZKRPWRZKRPZLWKZKRPZHUH\RX 21 FRPPXQLFDWLQJDERXWDMREDWWKLVWLPH" 22 $:HOORQWKHYHU\WRS3KLORU*DU\DQG 23 WKDWZDVIRUDEDUWHQGLQJSRVLWLRQ 24 42ND\ 25 $8P - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 89 3DJH 1 4:DVWKDWVRPHWKLQJ\RXUEURWKHUKDG 2 UHFRPPHQGHGRU\RXUIDWKHU",GRQ WNQRZZKR 3 $<RXNQRZ,MXVWORRNHGDWWKDWWKDW V 4 NLQGRIZK\,JLJJOHG,GRQ WNQRZZK\P\ 5 EURWKHUWKDW VP\EURWKHU7KDW VWKHZD\ZHWDON 6 WRHDFKRWKHU+LVWXSLGKHDG*RRGOXFNVPHOO\ 7 ;2;2;2VLVVLH 8 +H VP\OLWWOHEURWKHUVR\RXKDYHWR 9 XQGHUVWDQGZHNLQGRISOD\DURXQG%XWVXEMHFWWRP\ 10 UHVXPHIRUKRVSLWDOLW\, PQRWWRRVXUHZK\KHZRXOG 11 KDYHJRWWHQLWEXWDSSDUHQWO\KHGLG 12 42ND\$QG\RXVHHWKDW\RXUUHVXPHZDV 13 DWWDFKHGWRDQHPDLOFRPPXQLFDWLRQ\RXKDGZLWK\RXU 14 EURWKHU" 15 $<HV,GR 16 45LJKW$QGWKDW VDOVR\RXUEURWKHUZDV 17 SDUWRIWKHHPDLOFKDLQZLWKUHVSHFWWRDQDGSODFHG 18 RQFUDLJVOLVWIRUDSRVLWLRQFRUUHFW" 19 $+HZDVRQOHWPHMXVWFKHFNWKHGDWHV 20 WKHQ 21 46XUH 22 $VRMXVWZLWKLQDGD\RI 23 HDFKRWKHU\HV 24 4$OOULJKW$QGWKHQWKHUHVXPHWKDW V 25 DWWDFKHGLVWKHDGGUHVV\RXZHUHOLYLQJDWLQ 3DJH 1 -DQXDU\ 2 $<HV 3 4RIFRUUHFW" 4 $&RUUHFW 5 4$OOULJKW6R\RXEHOLHYH\RXFUHDWHGWKH 6 UHVXPHWKDW VDWWDFKHGWR'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 7 FRUUHFW" 8 $&RUUHFW 9 4$QG\RXVHQWLWRXWZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKLV 10 HPSOR\PHQW\RXVDZRQFUDLJVOLVWFRUUHFW" 11 $&RUUHFW 12 4$QG\RXDUHWKHRQHZKRSXWLQWRWKLV 13 GRFXPHQWWKHFRQWHQWVRIWKHUHVXPHULJKW" 14 $<HV 15 4$OOULJKW 16 05(':$5'6:H UHWDONLQJDERXWWKH 17 UHVXPHWKDW VDWWDFKHGWR([KLELWULJKW" 18 060(11,1*(5:HDUH 19 05(':$5'62ND\*RWLW 20 060(11,1*(57KDQN\RXIRUFODULI\LQJ 21 05(':$5'6*RWLW 22 060(11,1*(5$OWKRXJK,GRQ WNQRZ 23 WKHUHDUHDQ\GLIIHUHQFHVZLWK'HIHQGDQW V 24 ([KLELW 25 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of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 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 89 3DJH 1 $7RPDNHDZDJHIRUP\IDPLO\ 2 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5)DLUHQRXJK7KH 2 ILUVWTXDUWHURIWKH\HDUFDOHQGDU\HDU 3 $<HV 4 4" 5 $,IZH UHJRLQJWREHSROLWLFDOO\FRUUHFW 6 \HV 7 47KDW VZKDW\RXUHFDOO" 8 $,QGLFDWLQJ 9 , PVRUU\\HV 10 4$QGLV\RXUGHVFULSWLRQRI0DQQZD\ 11 /RJLVWLFVFRUUHFW" 12 $<HV 13 4$OOULJKW$QGKRZORQJGLG\RXZRUN 14 WKHUH" 15 $,WKLQNWKDWZDVOHVVWKDQD\HDUWKDW, 16 ZRUNHGWKHUH,ZRXOGDSSUR[LPDWHDERXWVL[VHYHQ 17 PRQWKV 18 4&DQ\RXQDPHRQHFRZRUNHU\RXKDGRUERVV 19 RUDQ\ERG\HOVHWKDWZRUNHGWKHUH" 20 $,NQRZKHUQDPHVWDUWHGZLWKDQ0EXW, 21 FDQ WUHPHPEHU,UHPHPEHUZKDWVKHORRNVOLNH, 22 MXVWGRQ WUHPHPEHUKHUQDPH 23 42ND\$QGKRZPXFKGLG\RXPDNHWKHUH" 24 $,GRQ WUHPHPEHUWKHH[DFWDPRXQW 25 $SSUR[LPDWHO\DERXWDQKRXU,WKLQN Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of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'R\RXXQGHUVWDQGWKDW 17 WREHDOLFHQVLQJRIVRPHVRUWRUDFODVV"2UZKDW 18 GR\RXXQGHUVWDQGWKDW 19 $,Q$XVWUDOLD\RXKDYHWRKDYHVRPHWKLQJ 20 FDOOHGDQ56$DQG5&*WREHDEOHWRZRUNDVD 21 ZDLWUHVVRUEDUWHQGHURUDQ\WKLQJ$QG,GLGQ WNQRZ 22 LILWZDVWKHVDPHRXWKHUHLQ$PHULFD6R,SXW 23 GRZQWKDW,KDG 24 ,KDGWDNHQD&35DQGILUVWDLG,GRQ W 25 UHPHPEHUZKHQEXWLW VQRWFXUUHQW Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of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6RLWFRXOGKDYHEHHQ 25 \RXUWKRU\RXUWK" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 89 3DJH 1 $+HGLGQ WKDQGPHWKHWLFNHWVDWWKDW 2 WLPHEXWKHWROGPHWKDWKHKDGERRNHGPHLQIRU 3 PDVVDJHWUDLQLQJDWDQLQVWLWXWHLQ&KLDQJ0DL 4 4$QGKHWROG\RXKHKDGERRNHG\RXWLFNHWV 5 WRDPDVVDJHWUDLQLQJLQ&KLDQJ0DL7KDLODQG 6 VRPHWLPHEHIRUH\RXUDFWXDOWKELUWKGD\" 7 05(':$5'6)RUP 8 4%<060(11,1*(5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2ND\$QGKHWROG\RX 3 KHKDGERRNHG\RXWLFNHWVWRJRWR7KDLODQGULJKW" 4 $&RUUHFW 5 4$OOULJKW6R\RXUHPHPEHURQHELUWKGD\ 6 DWZKLFK\RXUHFHLYHGPDNHXSEUDFHOHWDQGHDUULQJV 7 DQGRQHELUWKGD\DWZKLFK\RXUHFHLYHGWLFNHWVWR 8 7KDLODQG 9 'R\RXUHPHPEHUDQ\RWKHUELUWKGD\VWKDW 10 \RXVSHQWZLWK-HIIUH\(SVWHLQDQGRU*KLVODLQH 11 0D[ZHOO" 12 $, PVXUHWKHUHLVEXW,KRQHVWO\FDQ W 13 UHPHPEHUZKDW,GLGIRUP\WKELUWKGD\ 14 42ND\:HOO, PVRUU\GLG\RXNQRZIRU 15 VXUHWKDWWKHEUDFHOHWHDUULQJVDQGPDNHXSZHUHIURP 16 \RXUWKELUWKGD\RUGR\RXNQRZ" 17 $,GRQ WNQRZ 18 4%XW\RXNQRZWKH\ZHUHQRWIRU\RXU 19 WKELUWKGD\ULJKW" 20 $&RUUHFW 21 4$OOULJKW,I,FRXOGKDYH\RXJREDFNWR 22 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW,WKLQN 23 $'HIHQGDQW VVRUU\([KLELW" 24 48PKXP3DJHHLWKHUDWWKHERWWRPRU 25 LQWKHXSSHUULJKWKDQGFRUQHU $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of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2ND\<RXMXVWVDLG 24 \RXUHYLHZHGUHFRUGV\RXUVHOIFRUUHFW" 25 05(':$5'62EMHFW7KDW 3DJH 1 PLVFKDUDFWHUL]HGKHUWHVWLPRQ\6KHDFWXDOO\MXVW 2 WHVWLILHGWKDWVKHPD\KDYHKHDUGWKDW 3 060(11,1*(51R\RX UHQRWWHVWLI\LQJ 4 , YHDVNHGKHU 5 05(':$5'6, PFOHDULQJWKHUHFRUGXS 6 ULJKWQRZWKRXJK 7 060(11,1*(5<RXFDQREMHFWEDVHGRQ 8 IRUP7KDW VDYDOLGREMHFWLRQ<RX YHPDGH\RXU 9 UHFRUG 10 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG\RXUHYLHZUHFRUGV 11 WKDWFODULILHGGDWHVIRU\RX" 12 $, YHHLWKHUUHYLHZHGWKHPRU, YHEHHQ 13 WROGDERXW,FDQ WUHPHPEHU, PVRUU\, 14 NQRZ,NQRZQRZWKDWWKHGDWHVDUHZKDWWKH\DUH 15 EXW,GRQ WUHPHPEHU 16 4<RXGRQ WNQRZZKHQ\RXOHDUQHGWKDWWKH 17 GDWHVDUHZKDWWKH\DUH" 18 $1R,GRQ W 19 4$QG\RXUEHVWJXHVVLVZKDW" 20 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ 21 ,IDQ\RI\RXUDQVZHULVEDVHGRQ 22 DWWRUQH\FOLHQWSULYLOHJH, PLQVWUXFWLQJ\RXQRWWR 23 DQVZHU 24 $,FDQ WDQVZHUWKHQ 25 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\6RKDYH\RXU $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 DWWRUQH\VWROG\RXWRFKDQJH\RXUGDWHV" 2 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ 3 'RQRWDQVZHUWKDWTXHVWLRQ7KLVLVD 4 TXHVWLRQLQWHQWLRQDOO\GHYLVHGWRLQYDGHWKH 5 DWWRUQH\FOLHQWSULYLOHJH 6 6KH VQRWJRLQJWRDQVZHUWKRVHTXHVWLRQV 7 4%<060(11,1*(5<RXFDQDQVZHUD 8 TXHVWLRQDERXWZKHWKHU\RXUDWWRUQH\VKDGWROG\RXWR 9 OLH%HFDXVHWKDWZRXOGEHDFULPHDQG, PVXUH 10 $,ZLOO 11 4, PVXUH\RXZDQWWRWHOOPHWKDW\RXU 12 DWWRUQH\VGLGQRWWHOO\RXWROLHFRUUHFW" 13 $,FDQWHOO\RXIRUDIDFWP\DWWRUQH\V 14 KDYHQHYHUWROGPHWROLH 15 4$OOULJKW$QGGLG\RXUDWWRUQH\VWHOO 16 \RXWRFKDQJHDGDWH" 17 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ6KH VQRW 18 DQVZHULQJDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWFRPPXQLFDWLRQVEHWZHHQ 19 KHUODZ\HUVDQGKHUVHOISHULRG 20 4%<060(11,1*(56RLI,FRXOGDOVR 21 GLUHFW\RXUDWWHQWLRQWR'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW,W V 22 WKHPDQXVFULSW,I\RXFRXOGWXUQWRSDJH 23 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5,MXVWKDYHDTXLFN 24 UHTXHVW&RXQVHO 25 0V*LXIIUHZRXOG\RXPLQGEULQJLQJWKH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 89 3DJH 1 PLFKLJKHUXSRQ\RXUMDFNHWSOHDVH" 2 7+('(321(176XUH 3 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(57KDQN\RX 4 7+('(321(177HOOPHLIWKDW VRND\ 5 %HWWHU" 6 $2ND\3DJH" 7 4%<060(11,1*(55LJKW'R\RXVHHWKH 8 ILUVWIXOOSDUDJUDSKRQWKDWSDJH" 9 $,GR 10 47KHILUVWOLQHEHJLQV,VSHQWP\VZHHW 11 WKELUWKGD\RQKLVLVODQGLQWKH&DULEEHDQQH[WWR 12 /LWWOHVLF6W-DPHV,VOH+HOLNHGWRFDOOLW 13 /LWWOH6W-HII V+LVHJRZDVHQRUPRXVDVKLV 14 DSSHWLWHIRUIRUQLFDWLQJ 15 'R\RXVHHWKDWVHQWHQFH" 16 $,GR 17 47KDWLVQRWWUXHFRUUHFW"<RXZHUHQRW 18 VSHQGLQJ\RXUVZHHWWKELUWKGD\RQ/LWWOH6W-DPHV 19 ,VOHFRUUHFW" 20 $%DVHGRQP\NQRZOHGJHDWWKHWLPHWKDW, 21 ZURWHWKLVPDQXVFULSW,WKRXJKW,GLGVSHQGP\WK 22 ELUWKGD\WKHUH$QGVR,SXWLWGRZQLQWKHUHDV 23 WKDW1RZ,NQRZWKDWLWZDVQ WP\WKELUWKGD\ 24 42U\RXUVZHHWWKELUWKGD\" 25 $:HOOZH 3DJH 1 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 2 +DUDVVLQJ 3 4%<060(11,1*(5:DVLW\RXUVZHHWWK 4 ELUWKGD\" 5 $,VLWQRWFXVWRPWRFDOO\RXUWK 6 ELUWKGD\VZHHW"+DYH\RXQHYHUKHDUGWKDWVD\LQJ 7 EHIRUH" 8 4:DVLW\RXUVZHHWWKELUWKGD\ 9 0V*LXIIUH" 10 $$VZH 11 05(':$5'66KH VDQVZHUHGWKHTXHVWLRQ 12 ,W VEHHQDVNHGDQGDQVZHUHG 13 060(11,1*(56KHDVNHGPHDTXHVWLRQ 14 DFWXDOO\<RX UHQRWWHVWLI\LQJKHUH 15 4%<060(11,1*(5:DVLW\RXUVZHHWWK 16 ELUWKGD\" 17 $$V,WKRXJKWLQWKHPDQXVFULSWZKHQ, 18 ZURWHLW,WKRXJKWLWZDVP\VZHHWWKELUWKGD\ 19 42ND\1RZWKDW\RXNQRZLWZDVQ WZKHUH 20 GLG\RXVSHQG\RXUVZHHWWKELUWKGD\" 21 $:HOO,GRQ WNQRZ 22 4:HOOMXVWJLYHXV\RXUEHVWJXHVV 23 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ$QGVKH VQRW 24 JRLQJWRJXHVVWRGD\6KH VJRLQJWRWHOO\RXWKH 25 DQVZHUVDVVKHUHPHPEHUVWKHP 3DJH 1 ,I\RXUHPHPEHUWKHDQVZHUSOHDVHWHOO 2 KHUWKHDQVZHU 3 $,GRQ WNQRZWKHDQVZHUZKHUH,VSHQWP\ 4 VZHHWWKELUWKGD\ 5 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 89 3DJH 1 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 2 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of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 3DJH 1 ZDQWHGWRDLPIRUVRPHWKLQJKLJKHUWKDQEHLQJD 2 ORFNHUURRPDWWHQGDQWRQHGD\$QG<HDK 3 4:KDWZDVWKHQDPHRIWKHPDVVDJHWKHUDSLVW 4 WKDW\RXZHUHVSHDNLQJZLWK" 5 $2K,KDYHQRLGHD 6 4&DQ\RXJLYHPHDQ\SK\VLFDOGHVFULSWLRQ 7 RIDQ\RIWKHP" 8 $8PWKHUHZDVRQHZKRKDGEORQGHVKRUW 9 KDLU7KHUHZDV,ZRXOGVD\WKHUH VSUREDEO\ 10 DERXWIRXUPDVVDJHWKHUDSLVWVWKDWZRUNLQWKHUH 11 6R,PHDQ,GRQ WUHPHPEHUDOORIWKHP 12 42ND\:KDWWLPHRIGD\ZDVLW" 13 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 14 $$IWHUQRRQ 15 4%<060(11,1*(5+RZODWH" 16 $$Q\ZKHUHEHWZHHQWR 17 4$QGZKDWWLPHGLG\RXJHWRIIRIZRUN" 18 $,EHOLHYH,JRWRIIDW 19 4$QGZKDWZDVWKHUHVWRI\RXUFRQYHUVDWLRQ 20 ZLWK0V0D[ZHOO" 21 , PVRUU\,GRQ WWKLQN\RXILQLVKHG 22 $7KDQN\RX:HOOVKHQRWLFHG,ZDV 23 UHDGLQJWKHPDVVDJHERRN$QG,VWDUWHGWRKDYH 24 FKLWFKDWZLWKKHUMXVWDERXW\RXNQRZWKHERG\DQG 25 WKHDQDWRP\DQGKRZ,ZDVLQWHUHVWHGLQLW$QGVKH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 89 3DJH 1 42ND\$QGWKHQZKDWKDSSHQHG" 2 $6KHVKRRNKDQGVZLWKP\GDG/LNHVKH 3 EULHIO\RSHQHGWKHGRRU6KHVWHSSHGRXWVKRRN 4 KDQGVZLWKP\GDG7ROGKHUVLF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 3DJH 1 ZRUGPDVVDJHRQWKHIURQWRILW,GRQ WNQRZWKH 2 WLWOHRUWKHDXWKRU 3 4'R\RXNQRZWKHFRORURIWKHERRN" 4 $,WZDVLWZDVGDUN,WZDVDOLNH 5 SODVWLFFRYHULQJ 6 4$OOULJKW$QGKRZELJZDVLWLI\RXFDQ 7 MXVWGHPRQVWUDWHIRUWKHYLGHR" 8 $6PDOOHUWKDQWKDW0D\EH,GRQ W 9 PD\EHDOLWWOHELWOHVVWKDQWKDW 10 4&DQ\RXKROGLWVLGHZD\VIRUWKHYLGHR" 11 $&RPSOLHG 12 46R\RX UHVD\LQJWKHERRNVL]HZDVD 13 OLWWOHELWOHVVWKDQKDOIRI 14 $5LJKW,PHDQWKHERRNZDVDOLWWOHELW 15 ELJJHU7KHSDJHVZHUH\RXNQRZWKLVLVYHU\ 16 VPDOOSULQW7KLVLVSULQWHG$ORQJZD\VZKHUHDV, 17 WKLQN,WZDVQ W$WKDWZD\,GRQ WNQRZ,WZDV 18 MXVWDERRN$QG,GRQ WNQRZKRZPDQ\SDJHVLWKDG 19 HLWKHU,PHDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\PD\EHSDJHV 20 42ND\6RPD\EHP\TXHVWLRQZDVQ WDYHU\ 21 JRRGTXHVWLRQ 22 +RZELJZDVWKHRXWVLGHRIWKHERRNQRW 23 WKHWKLFNQHVVEXWWKHOHQJWKDQGWKHZLGWK" 24 $0D\EHOLNHKHUHLQGLFDWLQJ 25 46RDOLWWOHELWELJJHU" Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 89 3DJH 1 $/RQJHUWKDQWKLV\HDK:H UHJRLQJWR 2 IROGLWLQKDOIDJDLQDQGWKHQOLNHWKDW 3 LQGLFDWLQJ 4 46RODUJHUWKDQDQDQGDKDOIDQG 5 SLHFHRISDSHU" 6 05(':$5'6)RUP 7 $,GRQ WNQRZZKDWDQGDKDOIDQG 8 LQFKHVLV,IWKLVLVDQGDKDOIDQGLQFKHV 9 WKHQ\HV,W VLQGLFDWLQJ 10 4%<060(11,1*(5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 12 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHEDFNRQWKH 13 UHFRUGDW 14 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of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:KDWGD\RIWKHZHHN 22 ZDVWKHILUVWWLPH\RXZHQW" 23 $,GRQ WNQRZ 24 4'R\RXNQRZZKHWKHU\RXZHQWWKHYHU\QH[W 25 GD\RUQRW" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 $,EHOLHYH,GLG 2 4$OOULJKW+RZGLG\RXJHWWKHUHWKHYHU\ 3 QH[WGD\" 4 05(':$5'6)RUP 5 $,EHOLHYHP\GDGGURSSHGPHRIIDJDLQ 6 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 89 3DJH 1 DQRWKHUZHHNGD\RUZDVLWRQDZHHNHQG" 2 05(':$5'6)RUP 3 $,GRQ WNQRZ 4 4%<060(11,1*(5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, PMXVWWU\LQJWR 16 PDNHDFOHDUUHFRUGDERXWZKDW\RXGRUHPHPEHUDQG 17 ZKDW\RX UHJXHVVLQJDERXW6RZKHQ\RXVD\,WKLQN 18 ,ZRXOGKDYHLWOHDGVPHWREHOLHYH\RXGRQ WUHFDOO 19 LW 20 ,I\RXPHDQVRPHWKLQJGLIIHUHQWE\WKDW 21 $, 22 4SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFODULI\, PMXVW 23 WU\LQJWRH[SODLQWR\RXZKDW, PDVNLQJ 24 $<HV$QG, PGRLQJWKHYHU\EHVWWKDW, 25 FDQWHOO\RXH[DFWO\ZKDWLWLV%XWLW VMXVWKDUG $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 IRUPHWRUHPHPEHUVRORQJDJR$QGNQRZLQJWKDW, 2 LQWURGXFHGP\VHOIDV-HQQDWRHYHU\ERG\OHDGVPHWR 3 DVVXPHWKDW,ZRXOGKDYHLQWURGXFHGP\VHOIWRWKHPDV 4 -HQQDDVZHOO 5 4$OOULJKW%XWLIZHZHUHWRVSHDNWR 6 (PP\7D\ORUVKHPLJKWKDYHDGLIIHUHQWUHFROOHFWLRQ 7 IDLUWRVD\" 8 05(':$5'6)RUP 9 $6KHFRXOG 10 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 36 of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,FDQ W 10 SURQRXQFHKHUODVWQDPHSURSHUO\EXWLW VDURXQG 11 WKRVHOLQHV 12 7KHUHZHUHDORWRIRWKHUJLUOVWKDW, 13 KRQHVWO\FDQ WUHPHPEHUWKHLUQDPHV, PVRUU\, 14 ZLVK,FRXOGKHOSRXWPRUHEHFDXVH,UHDOO\ZRXOG 15 OLNHWRSURYLGHPRUHZLWQHVVHVIRUWKLVEXW,FDQ W 16 UHPHPEHUDORWRIJLUOV QDPHV 17 46RWKRVHDUHWKHWKUHHQDPHVRIIHPDOHV 18 WKDW\RXREVHUYHG*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOKDYHVH[ZLWK 19 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 20 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HVWHVWLPRQ\ 21 4%<060(11,1*(5LVWKDWZKDW, 22 XQGHUVWDQG\RXUDQVZHUWREH" 23 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HV 24 KHUWHVWLPRQ\ 25 $7KRVHDUHWKRVHDUHVRPHWKUHHRIWKH $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 QDPHVWKDW,NQRZYHU\ZHOO/LNH,VDLGWKHUHZDV 2 DORWPRUH 3 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 37 of 89 3DJH 1 $,GRQ WEHOLHYHWKDWDQ\RIWKHJLUOV 2 LQYROYHGZHUHWUXO\ZLOOLQJSDUWLFLSDQWVGRLQJLWRXW 3 RIWKHLURZQZDQWLQJ,EHOLHYHZHZHUHDOOWKHUH 4 IRURQHSXUSRVHDQGWKDWZDVWRNHHS-HIIUH\DQG 5 *KLVODLQHKDSS\DQGWRGRRXUMREVZKLFKZDVJLYLQJ 6 WKHPHURWLFPDVVDJHVDQGNHHSLQJWKHPSOHDVHG 7 VH[XDOO\ 8 4%<060(11,1*(5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2ND\6R\RXKDGPHW 24 SRZHUIXOSHRSOHEHIRUHWKHGD\WKDW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO 25 VDLGWKLVWR\RXLVWKDW\RXUWHVWLPRQ\" Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 38 of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 15 05(':$5'6+ROGRQ6KHZDVQ W 16 ILQLVKHGZLWKKHUTXHVWLRQVKHWROGPH6RWKDW V 17 QRWWKHILQLVKHGTXHVWLRQ 18 060(11,1*(5<RXLQWHUUXSWHGLW, 19 ILQLVKHGP\TXHVWLRQ6KHMXVWUHDGLWWRKHU 20 4%<060(11,1*(5&DQ\RXSOHDVHDQVZHU 21 WKHTXHVWLRQ" 22 05(':$5'67KHQ,REMHFWWRWKDW 23 TXHVWLRQDVDPLVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQRIKHUWHVWLPRQ\ 24 $QGVKHZDVQ WILQLVKHGZLWKKHUDQVZHU 25 $,WLVLPSRVVLEOHIRUPHWRNQRZWKHDJHV 3DJH 1 RIDOOWKHJLUOVWKDWZHUHVHQWWR-HIIUH\DQG 2 *KLVODLQH7KDWLVP\DQVZHU 3 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 ZDQWPHWRVWDUW,ILQGLWLPSRVVLEOHWRDQVZHU 2 WKDWTXHVWLRQZLWKWKHDPRXQWRIJLUOVWKDW,KDYH 3 ZLWQHVVHG$QGZLWKRXWEHLQJDEOHWRJLYH\RX 4 VSHFLILFQDPHV,GRQ WWKLQN, PDEOHWRDQVZHUWKDW 5 TXHVWLRQ 6 42ND\,DVNHG\RXWRGHVFULEHWKHPVR 7 \RXFRXOGJLYHPHDKHLJKWDKDLUFRORUDQ\WKLQJ 8 HOVHWKDWFRPHVWRPLQG" 9 $7KHUHZHUHEORQGHVWKHUHZHUHEUXQHWWHV 10 WKHUHZHUHUHGKHDGV7KH\ZHUHDOOEHDXWLIXOJLUOV 11 ,ZRXOGVD\WKHDJHVUDQJHGEHWZHHQDQG 12 4$QGZK\GR\RXEHOLHYHWKHDJHVUDQJHG 13 IURPWR" 14 $6RPHRIWKHPORRNHGUHDOO\\RXQJ6RPHRI 15 WKHP,ZRXOGQ WVD\ORRNVROGRUDQ\WKLQJOLNH 16 WKDWEXWLW VKDUGWRJDXJHDQRWKHUSHUVRQ VDJH 17 ZLWKRXWUHDOO\DVNLQJWKHP%XWVRPHRIWKHPORRNHG 18 \RXQJHUWKDQPHDQGVRPHRIWKHPORRNHGROGHUWKDQ 19 PH 20 4$QGLQZKDWSK\VLFDOORFDWLRQVGLG\RXVHH 21 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOKDYHVH[XDOFRQWDFWZLWKDQ\JLUO" 22 $SHUFHQWWKH869, 23 4:KHUH" 24 $-HIIUH\ VLVODQG 25 4:KHUH" Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 39 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 40 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 41 of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 3DJH 1 $7KDW VFRUUHFW 2 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGZKRHOVHZDV 3 SUHVHQWGXULQJ\RXUVXSSRVHGVH[XDOFRQWDFWZLWK 4 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOORQWKLVRFFDVLRQ" 5 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUPRIWKH 6 TXHVWLRQ 7 $,WZDVQ WVXSSRVHG,WDFWXDOO\KDSSHQHG 8 $QG*KLVODLQHZDVSUHVHQW-HIIUH\ZDVSUHVHQW, 9 EHOLHYH(PLO\7D\ORUZDVSUHVHQWDVZHOO 10 4%<060(11,1*(5$Q\RQHHOVH" 11 $7KHUHZDVVRPHRQHHOVHRQWKDWWULSZLWK 12 XVEXWWKH\ZHUHQ WLQYROYHGZLWKWKHVH[XDO 13 DFWLYLW\DWWKDWWLPH 14 42ND\$QGZKDWZDVWKHRWKHUORFDWLRQLQ 15 )UDQFH" 16 $,EHOLHYHWKHVDPHH[DFWSODFH,PHDQ 17 ZHVWD\HGWKHUHIRUDIHZGD\V 18 42ND\6RWKHWKUHHORFDWLRQVDUHKRWHOLQ 19 3DULVVDPHSODFHVDPHSODFH" 20 $&RUUHFW 21 4$QGWKHVHFRQGDQGWKLUGVDPHSODFHVZHUH 22 RQWKHVDPHWULS" 23 $6DPHWULS 24 42ND\$QGWKHQ\RXKDGDWKLUGWULSWR 25 )UDQFHZKHUH\RXGLGQRWKDYHVH[XDOFRQWDFWZLWK Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 42 of 89 3DJH 1 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 2 05(':$5'6)RUP 3 $,EHOLHYHLW VKDUGIRUPHWRUHPHPEHU 4 ,UHPHPEHUJRLQJWRTXLWHDIHZGLIIHUHQWFRXQWULHV 5 RQWKDWWULS,GRQ WNQRZLILWZDV,GRQ WNQRZ 6 LIZHGLGLWLQ3DULVRUQRWWREHKRQHVW:HGLG 7 LWLQRWKHUSODFHV%XW, YHEHHQWR3DULVWKUHH 8 WLPHVRUQRW3DULVVRUU\)UDQFH 9 4%<060(11,1*(5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 7 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHEDFNRQWKH 8 UHFRUGDW 9 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW 10 0V*LXIIUH,ZDQWWRWDONWR\RXDERXWZKHUH\RX 11 ZHUHOLYLQJLQWKHODWH V'R\RXUHFDOO\RX 12 WHVWLILHGHDUOLHU,EHOLHYHWKDW\RXZHUHOLYLQJDW 13 \RXUSDUHQWV KRXVHDQG\RXJDYHXVDQDGGUHVVDWWKH 14 WLPH\RXVWDUWHGDW0DUD/DJR 15 $<HV 16 4'R\RXUHPHPEHUZKHUH\RXOLYHGSUHYLRXV 17 WROLYLQJDW\RXUSDUHQWV KRXVHDWWKDWWLPH" 18 $/LNH,VDLG,ZDVDUXQDZD\VRWKHUHZDV 19 DORWRIGLIIHUHQWSODFHV,OLYHG2QHRIWKHSODFHV 20 ,OLYHGZDVOLNH,WROG\RXHDUOLHUZLWK0 FKDHO V 21 SDUHQWV7KDWZDVVRPHZKHUHDURXQG)RUW/DXGHUGDOH 22 ,EHOLHYHPD\EHDOLWWOHELWRXWVLGHRILW 23 42ND\ 24 $0LFKDHOJRWDQDSDUWPHQWDQG,OLYHGLQ 25 0LFKDHO VDSDUWPHQWIRUDVKRUWSHULRG $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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8PKXP Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 43 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 44 of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 3DJH 1 7+(5(3257(5, PVRUU\\RXU 2 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 45 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 46 of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2ND\, GOLNHWRPDUN 20 DV'HIHQGDQW V([KLELWDGRFXPHQWDQGVHHLI\RX 21 FDQLGHQWLI\LW 22 $FWXDOO\EHIRUH,GRWKDWZKHQGR\RX 23 UHFDOOHYHUJHWWLQJDSDVVSRUW" 24 $,JRWP\SDVVSRUWLQ1HZ<RUN,GRQ W 25 NQRZZKDWDJH,ZDV $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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 19 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\, PJRLQJWR 20 VKRZ\RX'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 21 'R\RXUHFRJQL]HWKLVGRFXPHQW" 22 $<HV 23 4,VWKLVGRFXPHQWWKHSDVVSRUWDSSOLFDWLRQ 24 WKDW\RXILOOHGRXW" 25 $<HV Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 47 of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p\RXZHUH 18 WDONLQJDERXWHDUOLHU" 19 $<HV 20 4,Q-DQXDU\RIZHUH\RXVWLOOKLV 21 DIILDQFHG" 22 $/RRNVOLNHLW\HV 23 4$QGZKDWDGGUHVVGLG\RXSXWGRZQIRU 24 -DPHV$XVWULFK" 25 $,W VNLQGRIKDUGWRUHDG,WKLQNWKDW V 3DJH 1 D,WKLQNLW V 2 ,UHDOO\FDQ WPDNHRXW 3 WKHWHOHSKRQHQXPEHU 4 42ND\'R\RXVHH5HODWLRQVKLS"&DQ\RX 5 UHDGWKDW" 6 $)ULHQG 7 42ND\'R\RXVHHMXVWEHORZWKDWWKHUH V 8 DOLQHWKDWVD\VQXPEHU" 9 $'RQRWVWRSVRUU\'RQRWVLJQ 10 DSSOLFDWLRQXQWLOUHTXHVWHGWRGRVRE\ 11 DGPLQLVWUDWLQJDQRDWK 12 42ND\ 13 $$SSOLFDQW VVLJQDWXUHDJHRUROGHU 14 42KLW VE\WKHVLJQDWXUHOLQH" 15 $<HDK 16 4$QGWKDW V\RXUVLJQDWXUH" 17 $<HV 18 4$OOULJKW$QGWKLVLVWKHGRFXPHQWWKDW 19 \RXUHFDOOILOOLQJRXWIRU\RXUILUVWSDVVSRUW" 20 $,GRQ WUHFDOOGRLQJLWEXW\HVLW VLQ 21 P\KDQGZULWLQJDQGLW VJRWDOORIP\LQIRUPDWLRQRQ 22 LW 23 42ND\$QGRQOLQHER[LW VJRW\RXU 24 GULYHU VOLFHQVHFKHFNHGRIIULJKW" 25 $-XO\<HDK,UHDOO\FDQ WPDNHRXW $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 48 of 89 3DJH 1 4$QGKHUHQWHGWKDWDSDUWPHQW" 2 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 3 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ 4 $+HOLYHGWKHUHZLWKPHIRUDVKRUWSHULRG 5 ,GRQ W,GRQ WNQRZKRZORQJKHOLYHGWKHUHZLWK 6 PHIRU 7 4%<060(11,1*(5$QGZKRUHQWHGWKH 8 DSDUWPHQW" 9 $:HOO-HIIUH\SDLGIRUWKHDSDUWPHQW, 10 ZDVWKHRFFXSDQWDQGKHZDVDQRFFXSDQW 11 4'LG\RXHYHUVHHWKHOHDVH" 12 $<HV,EHOLHYH,KDGWRVLJQWKHSDSHUZRUN 13 VD\LQJWKDW,ZDVOLYLQJWKHUH 14 46R\RXZHUHOLYLQJDWLVLW 15 16 $,FDQ WKRQHVWO\UHDGLW,WORRNVOLNHD 17 &DFVLF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 15 4+DYH\RXHYHUJRWWHQ 16 ,VWKDWULJKW" 17 $<HDK 18 4+DYH\RXHYHUJRWWHQDSDVVSRUWIURP 19 $XVWUDOLD" 20 $$Q$XVWUDOLDQSDVVSRUW" 21 45LJKW 22 $1R 23 4+DYH\RXHYHUORVWDSDVVSRUWDQGKDGWR 24 JHWRQHUHSODFHG" 25 $,GRQ WWKLQNVR $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 49 of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:KRHOVH" 25 $, PJRLQJWRFRQWLQXHWRWHOO\RXWKDW 3DJH 1 WKH\ERWKGLUHFWHGPHWRGRLW,WZDVSDUWRIP\ 2 WUDLQLQJ7KH\ERWKWROGPH\RX YHJRWWLFNHWVWR 3 JRKHUH7KLVLVZKR\RX UHPHHWLQJDQGWKLVLV 4 ZKDW\RX UHGRLQJ 5 6R LVDQRWKHURQH 6 4*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOGLUHFWHG\RXWRJRKDYH 7 VH[ZLWK " 8 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUPWRWKH 9 H[WHQWLWPLVFKDUDFWHUL]HGKHUWHVWLPRQ\ 10 $, PWU\LQJWRWHOO\RXWKDWWKH\ERWKGLG 11 *KLVODLQHDQG-HIIUH\ERWKGLUHFWHGPH7KH\ERWK 12 SDLGPHDQGWKH\ERWKGLUHFWHGPH 13 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW:KHQGLG 14 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOGLUHFW\RXWRJRKDYHVH[ZLWK 15 " 16 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP6DPH 17 REMHFWLRQ 18 $,GRQ WNQRZWKHWLPH,GRQ W\RX 19 NQRZ,FRXOGWHOO\RXWKHSODFH,GRQ WNQRZWKH 20 WLPH 21 4%<060(11,1*(5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2ND\:KHUHZHUH\RX 13 ORFDWHGZKHQVKHXVHGWKRVHZRUGVZLWK\RX" 14 $,WFRXOGKDYHEHHQ3DOP%HDFK,WFRXOG 15 KDYHEHHQ1HZ<RUN 16 4<RXGRQ WUHFDOO" 17 $,GRQ WUHFDOO 18 42ND\+RZROGZHUH\RXZKHQVKHXVHG 19 WKRVHZRUGVWR\RX" 20 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 21 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HVKHUWHVWLPRQ\ 22 $,GRQ WNQRZ,ZRXOGWKLQN,ZDV 23 4%<060(11,1*(5%XW\RX UHQRWVXUH" 24 $:HOOLWZDVLQWKHEHJLQQLQJOLNHDIWHU 25 P\WUDLQLQJ*OHQQ'XELQDQG ZHUH $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 50 of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 20 $6RLW VYHU\KDUGIRUPHWR 21 FKURQRORJLFDOO\JLYH\RXHDFKSHUVRQLQGLYLGXDOO\ 22 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\1DPHWKHRWKHU 23 SROLWLFDOO\FRQQHFWHGDQGILQDQFLDOO\SRZHUIXOSHRSOH 24 WKDW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOWROG\RXWRJRKDYHVH[ZLWK" 25 $$JDLQ, PJRLQJWRWHOO\RXWKH\ 3DJH 1 EHFDXVHWKDW VKRZLWZHQW7KH\LQVWUXFWHGPHWRJR 2 WR*HRUJH0LWFKHOO-HDQ/XF%UXQHO%LOO5LFKDUGVRQ 3 DQRWKHUSULQFHWKDW,GRQ WNQRZKLVQDPH$JX\ 4 WKDWRZQVDKRWHODUHDOO\ODUJHKRWHOFKDLQ, 5 FDQ WUHPHPEHUZKLFKKRWHOLWZDV0DUYLQ0LQVN\ 6 7KHUHZDV\RXNQRZDQRWKHUIRUHLJQ 7 SUHVLGHQW,FDQ WUHPHPEHUKLVQDPH+HZDV 8 6SDQLVK7KHUH VDZKROHEXQFKRIWKHPWKDW, 9 MXVWLW VKDUGIRUPHWRUHPHPEHUDOORIWKHP 10 <RXNQRZ,ZDVWROGWRGRVRPHWKLQJE\WKHVHSHRSOH 11 FRQVWDQWO\WROGWRP\ZKROHOLIHUHYROYHGDURXQG 12 MXVWSOHDVLQJWKHVHPHQDQGNHHSLQJ*KLVODLQHDQG 13 -HIIUH\KDSS\7KHLUZKROHHQWLUHOLYHVUHYROYHG 14 DURXQGVH[ 15 7KH\FDOOPDVVDJHVVH[7KH\FDOO 16 PRGHOLQJVH[7KH\FDOO 17 4,DVNHG\RXWKHQDPHVIRUSHRSOH$UH\RX 18 JRLQJWRWHOOPHDQ\RWKHUQDPHVRULVWKDWDOORI 19 WKHP" 20 $, PWU\LQJWRWKLQN7KDW VWKHDQVZHU 21 , PWU\LQJWRJLYHWR\RX,W VWKDWLW VVRKDUGWR 22 MXVWNHHSQDPLQJDQGQDPLQJDQGQDPLQJ 23 4$OOULJKW 24 $$ORWRIWLPHV,ZRXOGEHLQWURGXFHGWR 25 WKHP,GLGQ WNQRZ 3DJH 1 4,I\RX UHJRLQJWRWHOOPHPRUHQDPHV 2 SOHDVHFRQWLQXH\RXUDQVZHU 3 $, PWU\LQJWRWKLQN 4 4,I\RX UHMXVWJRLQJWRWDON 5 $, PVRUU\, PWU\LQJWRWKLQN 6 42ND\/HW VWDNHDEUHDNDQGWKHQ\RXFDQ 7 WKLQNRYHUWKHEUHDN 8 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHRIIWKHUHFRUGDW 9  10 5HFHVVWDNHQIURPSPWRSP 11 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHEDFNRQWKH 12 UHFRUGDW 13 4%<060(11,1*(50V*LXIIUH\RXKDYH 14 ILOHGDODZVXLWDJDLQVW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOFRUUHFW" 15 $<HV 16 4<RXXQGHUVWDQGKHUWREHP\FOLHQW 17 FRUUHFW" 18 $<HV 19 4, PKHUHWRGD\WRWDONWR\RXDERXW\RXU 20 DOOHJDWLRQVDJDLQVW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO 21 'R\RXXQGHUVWDQGWKDW" 22 $<HV 23 4,ZDQW\RXWRWHOOPHDVLQJOHWLPHWKDW 24 \RXUHFDOO*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOXVLQJZRUGVWR\RXDQG 25 GLUHFWLQJ\RXWRJRKDYHVH[ZLWKDQRWKHUSHUVRQ $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 05(':$5'62EMHFW 2 4%<060(11,1*(5QRWDQ\ERG\HOVH 3 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 4 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ$VNHGDQG 5 DQVZHUHG 6 7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWVKHFDQDQVZHUWKH 7 TXHVWLRQ, GDVNWKDWVKHDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQ 8 $,KDYHDQVZHUHGWKHTXHVWLRQ7KH 9 TXHVWLRQWKDW\RX UHDVNLQJPHLV*KLVODLQH$QG 10 *KLVODLQHDQG-HIIUH\ZRUNHGWRJHWKHU7KH\ZHUHRQH 11 DQGWKHVDPHRISHUVRQV7KH\ERWKGLUHFWHGPHWRGR 12 WKLV7KH\ERWKGLUHFWHGPHWRUHSRUWEDFNWRWKHP 13 7KH\ZHUHERWKWKHVDPH 14 4%<060(11,1*(5<RXFDQQRWUHFDOOD 15 VLQJOHLQVWDQFHLQZKLFK*KLVODLQH 16 $,KDYHWR 17 4([FXVHPH 18 LQZKLFK*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOODORQH 19 GLUHFWHG\RXWRKDYHVH[ZLWKDQRWKHUSHUVRQ 20 $,KDYHWR 21 4FRUUHFW" 22 $EHOLHYH 23 05(':$5'62EMHFW 24 060(11,1*(5,DPJRLQJWRILQLVKP\ 25 TXHVWLRQ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 51 of 89 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5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$QGWKHVHQDPHVWKDW 21 \RXKDYHMXVWJLYHQDUHSHRSOHWRZKRP*KLVODLQH 22 0D[ZHOODORQHWROG\RXWRJRKDYHVH[" 23 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ 24 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ 25 $*KLVODLQHDQG-HIIUH\,GRQ WNQRZKRZ 3DJH 1 PDQ\WLPHV\RXZDQWPHWRNHHSDQVZHULQJWKLV 2 TXHVWLRQ%RWKWROGPHWRGRWKLVRND\"7KH\ERWK 3 VHQWPHWRWKHVHSHRSOH 4 +RZPDQ\WLPHVGR\RXZDQWPHWRDQVZHU 5 WKLV" 6 4%<060(11,1*(5,WKLQN\RX UH 7 DQVZHULQJDGLIIHUHQWTXHVWLRQVRWKDW VZK\, P 8 JRLQJWRDVN\RXDJDLQ,DPQRWDVNLQJ\RXDQ\WKLQJ 9 DERXWDWLPHZKHQ-HIIUH\DQG*KLVODLQHWRJHWKHUWROG 10 \RXWRJRGRVRPHWKLQJ, PDVNLQJ\RXWRQDPHD 11 VLQJOHWLPHGXULQJZKLFK*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOODFWLQJ 12 DORQHGLUHFWHG\RXWRJRKDYHVH[ZLWKDQRWKHU 13 SHUVRQ" 14 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ$VNHGDQG 15 DQVZHUHG+DUDVVLQJ$UJXPHQWDWLYH 16 $, YHJLYHQ\RXWKHQDPHVRIWKHSHRSOH 17 WKDW*KLVODLQHLQVWUXFWHGPHWRJRKDYHVH[XDO 18 UHODWLRQVZLWK,DPQRWGLVFOXGLQJVLFWKHIDFW 19 WKDW-HIIUH\DOVRWROGPH 20 *KLVODLQHWROGPHIURPKHUPRXWKWRGR 21 WKHVHWKLQJV-HIIUH\WROGPHIURPKLVPRXWKWRGR 22 WKHVHWKLQJVZLWKWKHVHSHRSOH*KLVODLQHLQVWUXFWHG 23 PHWRGRWKHWKLQJVWKDW,GLGZLWK-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 24 RQWKHYHU\ILUVWPHHWLQJWKDW,KDGZLWKKLP6KH 25 EURXJKWPHWKHUHXQGHUWKHSUHFOXVLRQVLFWKDW, 3DJH 1 ZDVJRLQJWREHWUDLQHGDVDPDVVHXVHDQGWKDWVKH 2 LQVWUXFWHGPHWRWDNHRIIP\FORWKHVDQGWRJLYHRUDO 3 VH[WR-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 4 4%<060(11,1*(5([FXVHPH, YHDVNHG 5 \RXIRUWKHQDPHV 6 $, YHMXVWJLYHQ\RXDQDPH-HIIUH\ 7 (SVWHLQLVDELJQDPH 8 4$OOULJKW 9 $6KHLQVWUXFWHGPHRQWKDWRQH 10 46R\RX UHVD\LQJ 11 05(':$5'67KHZLWQHVVLVILQLVKLQJKHU 12 DQVZHUULJKWQRZ6KH VLQWKHSURFHVVRIH[SODLQLQJ 13 RQHRIWKHSHRSOH*KLVODLQHWROGKHUWRKDYHVH[ 14 ZLWK 15 4%<060(11,1*(56R\RX UHVD\LQJ 16 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOGLUHFWHG\RXWRKDYHVH[ZLWK 17 -HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 18 $&RUUHFW 19 4*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOGLUHFWHG\RXWRKDYHVH[ 20 ZLWK*OHQQ'XELQ" 21 $&RUUHFW 22 4:KDWZRUGVGLG*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOWHOO\RX 23 WRJRKDYHVH[ZLWK*OHQQ'XELQ" 24 $,WZDVWKHVDPHDOOWKHWLPHDOOULJKW" 25 7KH\ZDQWPHWRJRSURYLGHWKHVHPHQZLWKDPDVVDJH $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 52 of 89 3DJH 1 $:KHQLWKDSSHQHG" 2 4:KHQ*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOXVHGWKHZRUGV*R 3 JLYHDPDVVDJHWR%LOO5LFKDUGVRQZKHUHZHUH\RX" 4 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 5 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HVKHUWHVWLPRQ\ 6 $,FDQ WWHOO\RXZKHUHZHZHUH,NQRZ 7 ZKHUH,ZDVVHQWWR,GRQ WNQRZZKHUHZHZHUHZKHQ 8 VKHWROGPHWRGRWKDW 9 4%<060(11,1*(5:KHUHZHUH\RXVHQW 10 WR 11 $1HZ0H[LFR 12 4E\*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 13 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 14 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HVKHUWHVWLPRQ\DJDLQ 15 $$UH\RXVPLOLQJDWPHEHFDXVH 16 4%<060(11,1*(51R, PDVNLQJ\RXWR 17 DQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQ 18 $,KDYHDQVZHUHGWKHTXHVWLRQ,ZDVVHQW 19 WR1HZ0H[LFR 20 42ND\:KHUHZHUH\RXVHQWIURP" 21 $,DOUHDG\DQVZHUHGWKDW,GRQ WNQRZ 22 ZKHUH,ZDVVHQWIURP 23 42ND\ 24 $,ZDVIO\LQJHYHU\ZKHUHZLWKWKHVHSHRSOH 25 4:KHUHZHUH\RXVHQWE\*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO 3DJH 1 WRKDYHVH[ZLWK-HDQ/XF%UXQHO" 2 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 3 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HGKHUWHVWLPRQ\ 4 $0DQ\SODFHV 5 4%<060(11,1*(5*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOVHQW 6 \RXWRPDQ\SODFHVWRKDYHVH[ZLWK-HDQ/XF%UXQHO" 7 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 8 $,WKDSSHQHGDWPDQ\SODFHV\HV 9 4%<060(11,1*(5<RXKDGVH[ZLWK-HDQ 10 /XF%UXQHODWPDQ\SODFHVLVZKDW\RX UHVD\LQJ 11 FRUUHFW" 12 $,ZDVVHQWWR-HDQ/XF%UXQHODWPDQ\ 13 SODFHVWRKDYHVH[ZLWKKLP 14 4:KHQGLG*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOVHQG\RXWRD 15 SODFHWRKDYHVH[ZLWK-HDQ/XF%UXQHO" 16 $<RXDUHDVNLQJ 17 05(':$5'6)RUP 18 $PHWRDQVZHUWKHLPSRVVLEOH 19 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW:KHQGLG 20 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOVHQG\RXWRKDYHVH[ZLWKWKHRZQHU 21 RIDODUJHKRWHOFKDLQ" 22 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 23 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ 24 $, PJRLQJWRNHHSDQVZHULQJWKHTXHVWLRQV 25 WKHVDPHZD\WKDW,NHHSDQVZHULQJWKHP,GRQ W 3DJH 1 NQRZZKHUHLWZDVZKHQVKHVDLGWRJRGRWKLV 2 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\:KHUHZHUH\RX 3 VHQWWRKDYHVH[ZLWKWKHRZQHURIDODUJHKRWHO 4 FKDLQE\*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 5 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 6 $,EHOLHYHWKDWZDVRQHWLPHLQ)UDQFH 7 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 $1RVKHZDVQRWLQWKHURRP6KHZDVLQ 2 DQRWKHUFDEDQD 3 4$QGRWKHUWKDQWHOOLQJ\RXWRJRJLYHWKH 4 RZQHURIWKLVODUJHKRWHOFKDLQDPDVVDJHGR\RX 5 UHPHPEHUDQ\RWKHUZRUGVVKHXVHGWR\RXWRGLUHFW 6 \RXLQZKDW\RXVKRXOGGR" 7 $1RWDWWKHWLPHQR 8 4:KHUHGLGZKHUHZHUH\RXDQGZKHUHZDV 9 0V0D[ZHOOZKHQVKHGLUHFWHG\RXWRJRKDYHVH[ZLWK 10 0DUYLQ0LQVN\" 11 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 12 $,GRQ WNQRZ 13 4%<060(11,1*(5:KHUHGLG\RXJRWR 14 KDYHVH[ZLWK0DUYLQ0LQVN\" 15 $,EHOLHYHLWZDVWKH869LUJLQ,VODQGV 16 -HII VVRUU\-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ VLVODQGLQWKH86 17 9LUJLQ,VODQGV 18 4$QGZKHQZDVWKDW" 19 $,GRQ WNQRZ 20 4'R\RXKDYHDQ\WLPHRI\HDU" 21 $1R 22 4'R\RXNQRZKRZROG\RXZHUH" 23 $1R 24 42WKHUWKDQ*OHQQ'XELQ6WHSKHQ.DXIPDQQ 25 3ULQFH$QGUHZ-HDQ/XF%UXQHO%LOO5LFKDUGVRQ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 53 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 54 of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 3DJH 1 4:KHQZDVWKDW" 2 $ 3 4:KHQWKH\FDPHWRLQWHUYLHZ\RX" 4 $<HV 5 46RIURPXQWLO\RXOHIW&RORUDGRLW 6 ZDVLQ\RXUSHUVRQDOSRVVHVVLRQ" 7 $<HV 8 4:KDWRWKHUGRFXPHQWVUHODWHGWRWKLVFDVH 9 DUHLQWKDWVWRUDJHER[HVLQ$XVWUDOLD" 10 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 11 $'RFXPHQWVUHODWHGWRWKLVFDVHWKHUH 12 ,GRQ WNQRZ,UHDOO\FDQ WWHOO\RX,PHDQ 13 WKHUH VVHYHQER[HVIXOORI1HUIJXQVP\NLGV WR\V 14 SKRWRV,GRQ WNQRZZKDWRWKHUGRFXPHQWVZRXOGEH 15 LQWKHUH 16 4%<060(11,1*(5'LGDQ\RQHVHDUFK 17 WKRVHGRFXPHQWVDIWHU\RXUHFHLYHGGLVFRYHU\UHTXHVWV 18 IURPXVLQWKLVFDVH" 19 $,KDYHQ WEHHQDEOHWRREWDLQWKRVHER[HV 20 ,FDQ WJHWWKHPVHQWEDFNXSWRPH,W VJRLQJWR 21 FRVWPHDODUJHDPRXQWRIPRQH\$QGULJKWQRZ, P 22 WU\LQJWRORRNDIWHUP\IDPLO\VR, PQRWDEOHWR 23 DIIRUGWRJHWWKHPXS 24 4<RXOLYHLQ$XVWUDOLDFRUUHFW" 25 $,GR Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 55 of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 3DJH 1 EHFDXVH,JHWFRQIXVHGRQWKHLVODQGVWKHUH,ZDQW 2 WRVD\LWZDV6W-RKQ V,WFRXOGKDYHEHHQ 3 6W%DUWV6W-RKQRU6W%DUWVDQGWKHQZHZRXOG 4 IO\VWUDLJKWWR-HIIUH\ VLVODQG 5 42ND\'LG\RXHYHUJRDQ\ZKHUHHOVHRQ 6 WKHKHOLFRSWHU" 7 $1R 8 4:HUH\RXHYHURQWKHKHOLFRSWHUZLWK%LOO 9 &OLQWRQDQG*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOODVWKHSLORWRIWKH 10 KHOLFRSWHU" 11 $1R 12 4:HUH\RXHYHURQWKHKHOLFRSWHUZLWK%LOO 13 &OLQWRQ V6HFUHW6HUYLFHDQG*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOODVWKH 14 SLORW" 15 $1R 16 4'R\RXUHFDOOWHOOLQJ6KDURQ&KXUFKHUWKDW 17 \RXZHUH" 18 $1R 19 4'LG\RXVHHWKHSUHVVDUWLFOHLQZKLFK 20 6KDURQ&KXUFKHUUHSRUWHGWKDW\RXZHUH" 21 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ, GMXVWDVN 22 WKDWLI\RX UHJRLQJWRDVNWKLVZLWQHVVDERXWD 23 VSHFLILFDUWLFOH, GOLNHIRUKHUWRVHHWKHDUWLFOH 24 2WKHUZLVHVKH VQRWJRLQJWRWHVWLI\DERXWLW 25 ,I\RXKDYHVRPHWKLQJWRVKRZKHUWKHQ - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 56 of 89 3DJH 1 SOHDVH 2 4%<060(11,1*(5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$OOULJKW6R\RX UH 8 UHIXVLQJWRDQVZHUDTXHVWLRQDERXWZKHWKHU\RX 9 UHFDOODSDUWLFXODUSUHVVVWDWHPHQW 10 05(':$5'66KH V 11 4%<060(11,1*(5LVWKDWWUXH" 12 05(':$5'66KHLVQRWUHIXVLQJWR 13 DQVZHUDQ\TXHVWLRQV6KH 14 $, PQRWUHIXVLQJWRDQVZHU,MXVWZDQW 15 WRVHHWKHDUWLFOH\RX UHWDONLQJDERXWVR,FDQEH 16 FOHDULQP\VWDWHPHQW 17 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 57 of 89 3DJH 1 $,ZRXOGQ WVD\WKDWWKH\ZHUHXQWUXH, 2 ZRXOGMXVWVD\WKDWVKHSULQWHGWKHPDVMRXUQDOLVWV 3 WDNH\RXUZRUGVDQGWXUQWKHPLQWRVRPHWKLQJHOVH 4 4%<060(11,1*(56KHJRWLWZURQJ" 5 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 6 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ 7 $,QVRPHZD\V\HV 8 4%<060(11,1*(5'LGVKHSULQWWKLQJV 9 LQKHUDUWLFOHVWKDW\RXGLGQRWVD\WRKHU" 10 05(':$5'6,REMHFWDQGDVNWKDWWKH 11 ZLWQHVVEHJLYHQWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRVHHWKHGRFXPHQW 12 VRWKDWVKHFDQUHYLHZLWDQGDQVZHUWKDWTXHVWLRQ 13 DFFXUDWHO\2WKHUZLVHVKH VXQDEOHWRDQVZHUWKH 14 TXHVWLRQ, PQRWJRLQJWRDOORZKHUWRDQVZHU 15 060(11,1*(5<RXNQRZWKHFLYLOUXOHV 16 WHOO\RXQRWWRVXJJHVWDQVZHUVWR\RXUFOLHQW 17 4%<060(11,1*(5$QG\RXXQGHUVWDQG 18 \RXUODZ\HULVQRZGLUHFWLQJ\RXWRQRWDOORID 19 VXGGHQUHPHPEHUZKDW\RXUDQVZHULV7KDW VZKDW 20 KH VVXJJHVWLQJWKDW\RXVD\6R\RX UHQRWVXSSRVHG 21 WROLVWHQWRKLPVXJJHVWWKDWWR\RX<RX UH 22 VXSSRVHGWRWHOOPHIURP\RXUPHPRU\ 23 05(':$5'67KDWLVQRWZKDW, P 24 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG\RX 25 05(':$5'67KDW VQRWZKDW, PGRLQJ 3DJH 1 <RXGRQ WJHWWRMXVWWDONRYHUPHDQG 2 WHOOP\FOLHQWZKHQQRWWROLVWHQWRPH$OO\RX 3 KDYHWRGRWRJHWDQVZHUVLVVKRZKHUWKHGRFXPHQW 4 \RX UHWDONLQJDERXWDQG, OOOHWKHUDQVZHUHYHU\ 5 TXHVWLRQ,GRQ WNQRZZK\ZH UHVRVFDUHGRIWKH 6 DFWXDOGRFXPHQWV 7 060(11,1*(5,GRQ WNQRZZK\\RX UH 8 VFDUHGRI\RXUFOLHQW VUHFROOHFWLRQ0U(GZDUGV 9 %XWDQ\ZD\ 10 05(':$5'6:K\ZRXOG\RXGRWKLVWR 11 KHU" 12 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG6KDURQ&KXUFKHU 13 SULQWWKLQJVWKDW\RXGLGQRWVD\" 14 05(':$5'6, PJRLQJWRLQVWUXFWP\ 15 FOLHQWQRWWRDQVZHUXQOHVV\RXJLYHKHUZKDWLWLV 16 WKDW\RX UHWDONLQJDERXWWKDWZDVSULQWHG$QGVKH 17 ZLOOWHOO\RXWKHDQVZHUWKHDFFXUDWHDQVZHUWR\RXU 18 TXHVWLRQ-XVWZLWKRXWWKHGRFXPHQWWRUHIUHVKKHU 19 UHFROOHFWLRQDQGVHHLWVKH VQRWJRLQJWRDQVZHU 20 WKHTXHVWLRQ 21 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG6KDURQ&KXUFKHU 22 SULQWWKLQJVWKDW\RXGLGQRWVD\" 23 05(':$5'66DPHREMHFWLRQ6DPH 24 LQVWUXFWLRQQRWWRDQVZHU 25 ,WKLQN, YHPDGHDYHU\FOHDUUHFRUGDV 3DJH 1 WRZK\,ZDQWP\FOLHQWWRDQVZHUDOORIWKHVH 2 TXHVWLRQVEXW,ZDQWKHUWRKDYHWKHIDLU 3 RSSRUWXQLW\WRVHHWKLVGRFXPHQW 4 4%<060(11,1*(5'LG6KDURQ&KXUFKHU 5 SULQWWKLQJVWKDW\RXIHOWZHUHLQDFFXUDWH" 6 05(':$5'66DPHREMHFWLRQ6DPH 7 LQVWUXFWLRQ,IVKHVHHVWKHGRFXPHQWVKH VJRLQJ 8 WRDQVZHUHYHU\RQHRIWKHVHTXHVWLRQV 9 4%<060(11,1*(5'LGDQ\RWKHUUHSRUWHU 10 SULQWVWDWHPHQWVWKDW\RXEHOLHYHDUHLQDFFXUDWH" 11 05(':$5'66DPHREMHFWLRQ6DPH 12 LQVWUXFWLRQ 13 4%<060(11,1*(5'LGDQ\UHSRUWHUSULQW 14 VWDWHPHQWVDERXW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOWKDWZHUH 15 LQDFFXUDWH" 16 05(':$5'66DPHREMHFWLRQ6DPH 17 LQVWUXFWLRQ 18 7KLVLVKDUDVVLQJ7KLVLVKDUDVVLQJD 19 VH[XDODEXVHYLFWLP$QGDOO, PDVNLQJLVIRU 20 IDLUQHVVWKDWZHMXVWOHWKHUVHHWKHGRFXPHQWVR 21 VKHFDQDQVZHUWKLV 22 060(11,1*(50U(GZDUGVSOHDVHVWRS 23 VD\LQJDQ\WKLQJRWKHUWKDQDQREMHFWLRQZKDWWKH 24 EDVLVLVRULQVWUXFWLQJ\RXUFOLHQWQRWWRDQVZHU 25 05(':$5'6,ZLOOGRWKDW $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 060(11,1*(57KDW VZKDWWKH)HGHUDO 2 5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUHSURYLGH 3 05(':$5'6,KHDU\RX7KH\DOVR 4 SURYLGHIRUIDLUQHVVDQGFLYLOLW\$QGDOO, P 5 DVNLQJYHU\FDOPO\LVIRUKHUWRVHHWKLV 6 060(11,1*(50U(GZDUGVWKLVLVQRW 7 \RXUGHSRVLWLRQ, PDVNLQJ\RXUFOLHQWZKDWVKH 8 UHPHPEHUV,IVKHGRHVQ WZDQWWRWDONDERXWZKDW 9 VKHUHPHPEHUVWKHQOHWKHUQRWDQVZHU%XW\RX 10 FDQQRWLQVWUXFWKHUQRWWRDQVZHUXQOHVVWKHUH VD 11 SULYLOHJH 12 :KDWSULYLOHJH 13 05(':$5'6,DPLQVWUXFWLQJKHUQRWWR 14 DQVZHU 15 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW<RXDUH 16 UHIXVLQJWRDQVZHUTXHVWLRQVDERXWZKHWKHUVWDWHPHQWV 17 WRWKHSUHVVDERXW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOODWWULEXWHGWR 18 \RXZHUHLQDFFXUDWH" 19 05(':$5'66KH VQRWUHIXVLQJQRWWR 20 DQVZHU 21 $<RXDUHUHIXVLQJWRVKRZPHWKHVH 22 GRFXPHQWVVR,FRXOGDQVZHUSURSHUO\,ZRXOGJLYH 23 \RXDQDQVZHULI\RXZHUHWRVKRZPHVRPHGRFXPHQWV 24 4%<060(11,1*(5<RXFDQ WVD\ZLWKRXW 25 ORRNLQJDWDGRFXPHQWZKHWKHUWKHSUHVVDWWULEXWHGWR Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 58 of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$QGZKHQGLG\RXJLYH 22 WKHPWRKHU" 23 $:KHQVKHFDPHRXW 24 4:KHQZDVWKDW" 25 $6RPHWLPH,EHOLHYHLQHDUO\ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 59 of 89 3DJH 1 4:KDWGLG\RXJHWSDLGIRULIQRWIRU 2 WKRVHSLHFHVRISDSHU" 3 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 4 $,ZDVSDLGIRUWKHSLFWXUHZLWK3ULQFH 5 $QGUHZZLWKKLVDUPDURXQGPH*KLVODLQHLQWKH 6 EDFNJURXQG$QG,ZDVSDLGIRUWKH,JXHVVWKH 7 SULQWRIWKHVWRULHV 8 4%<060(11,1*(5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,Q\RXUSUHVHQFH" 9 $,GRQ WUHPHPEHUWKHH[DFWFRQYHUVDWLRQ 10 ,MXVWUHPHPEHUWKH\OLNHGWRSOD\WKHJXHVVLQJJDPH 11 DORW 12 4$QGVR\RXGRQ WUHFDOO*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO 13 WHOOLQJ3ULQFH$QGUHZLQ\RXUSUHVHQFHWKDW\RXZHUH 14 TXRWHRQO\UHDOO\RQO\ULJKW" 15 $&RUUHFW,GRQ WUHPHPEHUWKDW 16 4$QGLIWKDWZHUHLQWKHSDSHUWKDWZRXOG 17 EHXQWUXHFRUUHFW" 18 $&RUUHFW 19 060(11,1*(5,WKLQNQRZPLJKWEHD 20 JRRGWLPHIRUDEUHDN 21 7+('(321(177KDQN\RX 22 05(':$5'62ND\6RXQGVJRRG 23 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHRIIWKHUHFRUGDW 24  25 5HFHVVWDNHQIURPSPWRSP $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHEDFNRQWKH 2 UHFRUGDW 3 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 60 of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'LG\RXWHOO7RQ\ 21 )LJXHURDWKDW\RXZHUHIRUFHGWRKDYHVH[ZLWK 22 -HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 23 $<HV 24 4'LG\RXWHOO7RQ\)LJXHURD\RXZHUHIRUFHG 25 WRKDYHVH[ZLWK*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 3DJH 1 $<HV 2 4'LG\RXWHOO7RQ\)LJXHURDWKDW*KLVODLQH 3 0D[ZHOOVHQW\RXWRKDYHVH[ZLWKIDPRXVSHRSOH" 4 $<HV 5 4:KHQGLG\RXWHOO7RQ\)LJXHURDWKDW" 6 $'XULQJFRQYHUVDWLRQV/LNH, GFDOOKLP 7 IURPSODFHVWKDW,ZDVDWDQGMXVWWDONWRKLP$QG 8 OLNH,VDLG,ZRXOGQ WJHWLQWRJUHDWGHWDLODERXW 9 WKLQJV%XW\RXNQRZ,KDGWREHZLWKWKLVSHUVRQ 10 RUWKDWSHUVRQWRGD\DQG 11 4'LG\RXWHOO7RQ\)LJXHURDQRWWRFDOOWKH 12 SROLFH" 13 $1R7RQ\HQMR\HGKLVOLIHVW\OHZLWKPH 14 6RKHZRXOGQ WKDYHJRQHWRWKHSROLFH 15 4'LG\RXWHOO-DPHV0LFKDHO$XVWULFKWKDW 16 \RXZHUHVH[XDOO\WUDIILFNHG" 17 $<RXNQRZ,GRQ WNQRZZKDW,WROG0LFKDHO 18 DWWKHWLPH,NQRZKHDVNHGPHDQG,WKLQN,WROG 19 KLPEXW,GLGQ WJHWLQWRGHWDLOZLWKKLP 20 4:KDWGR\RXWKLQN\RXWROGKLP" 21 $7KDW,ZDVQ WMXVWPDVVDJLQJWKHVHSHRSOH 22 4'LG\RXWHOOKLPZKDW\RXZHUHGRLQJZLWK 23 -HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 24 $<HV 25 4'LG\RXWHOO-DPHV0LFKDHO$XVWULFKZKDW 3DJH 1 \RXZHUHGRLQJZLWK*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 2 $<HV 3 4'LG\RXWHOOKLPZKDW\RXZHUHGRLQJWR 4 RWKHUSHRSOH" 5 $,GRQ WWKLQN,WROGKLPDERXWPDQ\RWKHU 6 SHRSOHQR 7 4:KDWSHRSOHGLG\RXWHOOKLPDERXW" 8 $0DLQO\*KLVODLQHDQG-HIIUH\ 9 4:KHQGLG\RXWHOOKLPWKDW" 10 $)URPWKHVWDUW 11 4:KHQZDVWKHVWDUWWKDW\RXWROGKLP" 12 $)URP,ZRXOGQ WVD\WKHILUVWPHHWLQJ 13 EXW,WROGKLPDURXQGWKDWWLPH 14 4$QGZKDWGLG0LFKDHO$XVWULFKWHOO\RXWR 15 GR" 16 $+HGLGQ WPLQGZKDW,KDGWRGR$JDLQ 17 KHZDVDQRWKHUJX\WKDWXVHGPHEHFDXVH,PDGHORWV 18 RIPRQH\DQGKHGLGQ WWHOOPHWRGRDQ\WKLQJ 19 4'LGKHWHOO\RXQRWWRWHOOWKHSROLFH" 20 $1RKHGLGQ WWHOOPHQRWWRGRDQ\WKLQJ 21 4'LGKHWHOO\RXWRWHOOWKHSROLFH" 22 $$JDLQKHWROGPHQRWKHGLGQ WWHOOPH 23 WRGRDQ\WKLQJ 24 4:KHQGLG\RXWHOO\RXUSDUHQWVWKDW\RX 25 ZHUHVH[XDOO\WUDIILFNHGE\-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 61 of 89 3DJH 1 4'R\RXJHWDORQJZLWK\RXUSDUHQWVQRZ" 2 $,JHWDORQJZLWKP\SDUHQWVQRZ\HV 3 42ND\+DYH\RXHYHUWROGDQ\RQHWKDW\RX 4 ZHUHDVH[VODYHIRUIRXU\HDUV" 5 $8QGHUWKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDW,JRWP\GDWHV 6 ZURQJ\HV,SUREDEO\KDYH 7 4$QGWKDW VQRWWUXHFRUUHFW" 8 $1RWEHFDXVH,GLGQ WPHDQLWWREHWUXH 9 -XVWEHFDXVH,GLGQ WNQRZP\GDWHV 10 46RIRXU\HDUVLVQRWWZR\HDUVFRUUHFW" 11 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 12 $)RXU\HDUVLVQRWWZR\HDUV 13 4%<060(11,1*(5:KDWGLG\RXUSDUHQWV 14 VD\ZKHQ\RXWROGWKHPWKDW\RXKDGEHHQVH[XDOO\ 15 WUDIILFNHGE\-HIIUH\(SVWHLQDQG*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO" 16 $,EHOLHYHWKH\ZHUHGLVJXVWHG 17 4:KDWGLGWKH\WHOO\RXWRGRRUWRQRWGR" 18 $,GRQ WUHPHPEHUWKHH[DFWFRQYHUVDWLRQV 19 WKDWZHKDGEXWWKH\ZHUHQ WKDSS\ 20 4:HUHWKH\ERWKRQWKHSKRQHDWWKHVDPH 21 WLPH" 22 $1R 23 4:KRZDVRQWKHSKRQHILUVW" 24 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 25 $,GRQ WNQRZ 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 62 of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, PMXVWDVNLQJ\RXLI 14 \RXEHOLHYHLW VDEDGWKLQJWROHDYHWKHFRXQWU\ 15 ZKHQ\RXKDYHDQRXWVWDQGLQJZDUUDQW" 16 $$EVROXWHO\ 17 4$QG\RXZRXOGQHYHUDVVLVWVRPHRQHLQ 18 GRLQJWKDWFRUUHFW" 19 $&RUUHFW 20 4'XULQJWKH\HDUKDYH\RXVSRNHQWR 21 ODZHQIRUFHPHQWDERXWDQ\WRSLFRWKHUWKDQ*KLVODLQH 22 0D[ZHOO" 23 $,Q" 24 48PKXP 25 $'LG,WDONWRDQ\ODZHQIRUFHPHQWDERXW $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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+DYH\RXVSRNHQWRDQ\ 18 ODZHQIRUFHPHQWLQ&RORUDGRVLQFHWKHEHJLQQLQJRI 19 -DQXDU\" 20 $,FDQ WDQVZHUWKDWTXHVWLRQULJKWQRZ 21 05(':$5'6+ROGRQRQHVHFRQG,PD\ 22 EHDEOHWRJHW\RXDQDQVZHUWRWKDWTXHVWLRQ&DQ, 23 WDNHFDQ,MXVWWDNHDTXLFNEUHDNDQG,WKLQN, 24 FDQDQVZHUWKDWSDUWLFXODUTXHVWLRQIRU\RX" 25 060(11,1*(5, PQRWDVNLQJ\RXWR Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 63 of 89 3DJH 1 DQVZHUDQ\TXHVWLRQV 2 05(':$5'6)LQH 3 060(11,1*(50U(GZDUGV 4 05(':$5'6)LQH 5 060(11,1*(5,DSSUHFLDWHLWEXW, P 6 DVNLQJWKHZLWQHVVWRDQVZHUWKHVHTXHVWLRQV 7 05(':$5'6,NQRZ, PMXVWWU\LQJWR 8 KHOS\RXWRGD\ 9 )RUWRGD\GRQ WDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQV 10 7+('(321(17,GRQ WPLQGH[SODLQLQJ 11 05(':$5'6,NQRZEXW\RX 12 7+('(321(172ND\ 13 05(':$5'6,ZDQWHGWRKHOS 14 7+('(321(172ND\ 15 4%<060(11,1*(5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■ I ■ I - ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ I ■ I - ■ I ■ I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 64 of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 19 05(':$5'67KDQN\RX 20 4%<060(11,1*(5, PQRWJRLQJWRDVN 21 \RXWRUHDGHYHU\VLQJOHSDJHRIWKLVEXWLI\RX 22 ORRNDWWKHILUVWSDJH 23 $8PKXP 24 4&DQ\RXWHOOZKDWWKLVLVLQWHUPVRIZKDW 25 W\SHRIGRFXPHQW" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 65 of 89 3DJH 1 RQWKHHPDLODGGUHVVOLQHDUHDQ\WKLQJRWKHUWKDQ 2 \RXUHPDLO" 3 $1RWKH\ UHP\HPDLOV 4 42ND\'LGDQ\RQHHOVHXVH\RXUHPDLO 5 DFFRXQW" 6 $1R 7 42ND\ 8 $,PHDQZHOOP\KXVEDQGXVHVLW 9 VRPHWLPHV0\NLGVXVHLWIRUJDPHV 10 42ND\ 11 $%XWWKDW VDERXWLW 12 46RLIDQHPDLOLVVLJQHG;2;2-HQQD 13 $<HV 14 4LVWKDW\RX" 15 $&RUUHFW 16 4$OOULJKW$QGGR\RXEHOLHYHDQ\RQHHOVH 17 LQ\RXUIDPLO\ZDVFRPPXQLFDWLQJZLWK 18 " 19 $1RQRRQHHOVH 20 4$OOULJKW:KDWZDVWKHSXUSRVHRI\RX 21 FRPPXQLFDWLQJZLWK-DUUHG" 22 $:HZHUHWU\LQJWRILJXUHRXWLIP\ERRN 23 ZDVP\PDQXVFULSWZDVHYHUSXEOLVKHGRU 24 SXEOLVKDEOH$QGWKLVZDVDWDWLPHZKHUHWKHUHZDV 25 DORWRIFRQWURYHUV\DERXWZKDW VJRLQJRQDURXQG-( 3DJH 1 $QGZKHQ,VD\-(,PHDQ-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 2 ,WZDVDYHU\VFDU\WKLQJIRUDORWRISXEOLVKHUVWR 3 HYHQFRQVLGHUWDNLQJLWRQEHFDXVH-HIIUH\LVDYHU\ 4 SRZHUIXOSHUVRQ 5 4'LG\RXVHQG\RXUPDQXVFULSWWR-DUUHG" 6 $,EHOLHYH,GLG 7 4$OOULJKW'LG\RXDVN-DUUHGWRVHQGLW 8 RQWRRWKHUSHRSOHOLNH7RQ\" 9 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 10 $,FDQ W,FDQ WUHFDOO,EHOLHYH, 11 PHW7RQ\WKURXJK-DUUHG 12 4%<060(11,1*(5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7KHILUVWHPDLOVRI 13 WKLVFRPSRVLWHH[KLELWDUHGDWHG-XO\RI 14 FRUUHFW" 15 $&RUUHFW 16 05(':$5'67KHILUVWSDJH$VRSSRVHG 17 WRWKHILUVWLQWKHFKURQRORJLFDOWLPHOLQH 18 060(11,1*(5<HV 19 05(':$5'62ND\ 20 4%<060(11,1*(5,I\RXIOLSVRUWRI 21 DQ\ZKHUHWRZDUGVWKHEDFNFDQ\RXDOVRVHHWKDW 22 \RXWKHUHDUHHPDLOVEHWZHHQ\RXUVHOIDQG-DUUHG 23 LQ" 24 $([FXVHPH$QGZKLFKSDJH" 25 45HDOO\\RXFDQWDNH\RXUSLFNDQ\ZKHUH $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 66 of 89 3DJH 1 FRYHUHGWKHRQJRLQJFDVHRI-HIIUH\(SVWHLQWKH 2 ZRUOG VULFKHVWSHGRSKLOH$QGP\JRRGIULHQGDQG 3 MRXUQDOLVW6KDURQ&KXUFKHUKDVDIHZIURPKHU 4 DUWLFOHVWKDWVKHKDVZULWWHQWRVHQGWR\RXDVZHOO 5 &RUUHFW" 6 $&RUUHFW 7 4,DPYHU\VHULRXVDERXWJHWWLQJP\ERRN 8 SXEOLVKHGDQGEHOLHYHWKLVVWRU\ZLOOFRYHUPDQ\ 9 JHQUHVRILQWHUHVWQRWRQO\E\WKRVHIROORZLQJWKH 10 OHQJWK\FDVHEXWLWLVDOVRDZRPDQ VVWRU\RI 11 JOLW]JODPRXUVRUURZFRPSDVVLRQDQGWUXHORYH, 12 KRSH\RXHQMR\ 13 &RUUHFW" 14 $&RUUHFW 15 46LJQHG\RXUVHOI" 16 $<HV 17 46RLQDERXW-XQH\RXVHQWWR-DUUHG 18 :HLVIHOGDV\QRSVLVDQGZHUHDVNLQJKLPWRUHSUHVHQW 19 \RXDV\RXUOLWHUDU\DJHQWWRVHOOWKHERRNFRUUHFW" 20 $<HV 21 4$QG\RXFKDUDFWHUL]HG6KDURQ&KXUFKHUDV 22 \RXUJRRGIULHQGFRUUHFW" 23 $:HOODWWKDWWLPH\RXKDYHWR 24 XQGHUVWDQG-DUUHGDQG6KDURQDUHYHU\FORVH6KDURQ 25 LVWKHRQHZKRLQWURGXFHGPHWR-DUUHG$QGWKDW V 3DJH 1 MXVWEHLQJQLFH 2 4'R\RXGLVDJUHHWKDW6KDURQ&KXUFKHUZDV 3 \RXUJRRGIULHQGDWWKDWWLPH" 4 $:HOODWWKDWWLPH,GLGWUXVWKHUDORW 5 PRUHWKDQZKDW,GRQRZ 6 4:K\GLG\RXFKDQJH\RXURSLQLRQRI6KDURQ 7 &KXUFKHU" 8 $<RXNQRZ,,MXVW,WKLQN, 9 WKLQNWDONLQJWRVRPHMRXUQDOLVWVFDQEHYHU\ 10 GDQJHURXVHVSHFLDOO\VRPHWLPHVKRZZRUGVFDQJHW 11 WDNHQRXWRIFRQWH[W$QG, PQRWVD\LQJWKDWVKH V 12 DEDGSHUVRQ, PMXVWVD\LQJWKDWMXVW,ZRXOGQ W 13 FDOOKHUXSDQGDVNKHUZKDWVKH VFRRNLQJIRUGLQQHU 14 WRQLJKWRUKRZWKHIDPLO\LVGRLQJ 15 4'LG\RXHYHULQWURGXFHKHUWR\RXUKDLU 16 VW\OLVW" 17 $1R 18 4$OOULJKW 19 $2KDFWXDOO\\HV,GLG6KHGLGJHWD 20 KDLUFXWZKHUH,ZDVDW 21 4$OOULJKW 22 060(11,1*(56RLI,FRXOGKDYHWKH 23 HPDLOVZLWK3DXOR6LOYDSOHDVH, PJRLQJWRPDUN 24 WKHVH'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 25 2K,GRQ WNQRZLIWKDW VLVWKDWMXVW 3DJH 1 RQH"$OOULJKW 2 05(':$5'6:KDWDUHZHRQQRZ" 3 060(11,1*(5 4 ([KLELWPDUNHG 5 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 $7KHSOXVWKHDQGWKH 2 42ND\$QGGLGKHDOVRSD\\RXRQDQ 3 RQJRLQJEDVLVIRUIXUWKHUVDOHVRIWKHSKRWRJUDSKRI 4 \RXUVHOIDQG3ULQFH$QGUHZ" 5 $1RLWZDVDVHWIHHRISOXVWKH 6 DQG%XWWKH\EURNHLWXSIRUVRPHUHDVRQ6RDV 7 \RXFDQVHHKHUH7KDQNVIRUWUDQVIHUULQJWKHPRQH\ 8 ,ZLOOOHW\RXNQRZZKHQLWUHDFKHVP\EDQNDFFRXQW 9 EXWMXVWDOLWWOHELWFRQIXVHGDV,KDYHDSUHYLRXV 10 HPDLOZLWKWKHDPRXQWRZHGDW,VWKHUHVWLOO 11 DQRXWVWDQGLQJDPRXQW\HWWREHSDLG 12 6RWKH\EURNHLWXSLQWRTXLWHDORWRI 13 GLIIHUHQWIUDFWLRQVEXWLWVWLOOHTXDOHGWKHSOXV 14 WKHDQGWKH 15 42ND\,I,FRXOGDVN\RXWRIOLSEDFNWR 16 *LXIIUH7KH\ UHLQVHTXHQWLDORUGHUVRLW 17 VKRXOGEHDERXWHLJKWSDJHVEDFN 18 $<HV 19 4$OOULJKW'R\RXVHHGR\RXVHHWKDW 20 WKDW VDQHPDLOIURP3DXOR6LOYDWR\RXUHPDLO 21 DFFRXQW" 22 $<HV 23 42QRUDERXW0DUFKWK" 24 $<HV 25 4$OOULJKW$QGLWDSSHDUVWREHKLV Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 67 of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 20 42ND\, PJRLQJWRDVN\RXWRWXUQEDFN 21 WR 22 $" 23 4&RUUHFW 24 $2ND\ 25 4$QGLW VDGRFXPHQWZLWKWKHKHDGLQJ6ROR $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 68 of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7DNHDORRNDWWKDW 22 ([KLELWPDUNHG 23 7+('(321(176RSXWWKLVRQHDZD\" 24 05(':$5'63XWWKHVHLQVRPHVRUWRI 25 RUGHU7KH\GRQ WKDYHWREHSHUIHFWEXWMXVWVR 3DJH 1 \RXNQRZZKDW\RX UHORRNLQJDW 2 7KLVLV" 3 4%<060(11,1*(5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6RZKHQUHVSRQGHGWRD 8 0D\WK 9 $2KQR\RX UHULJKW1R, PVRUU\, P 10 JRLQJEDFNZDUGVEHFDXVHLW VJRLQJXSLVQ WLW" 11 2ND\<HV 12 4$OOULJKW 13 $, PFRQIXVHGWRR 14 4$Q\ZD\,QWKHODVWHPDLOLWVD\V, P 15 YHU\VDGZHZRQ WEHDEOHWRZRUNWRJHWKHUDV, YH 16 EHHQYHU\H[FLWHGDERXWWKHSURMHFW$V\RXNQRZ, 17 GRQRWVHOOV\QRSVLVRULQGLYLGXDOFKDSWHUVDQG 18 HVSHFLDOO\QRWIRUWKRVHDPRXQWV, PPHUHO\ 19 LQWULJXHGDERXWZKHUH\RXZHUHJHWWLQJDGYLFHIURP 20 5HVWDVVXUHGZKDWZHKDYHZRUNHGRQLVFRQILGHQWLDO 21 ,I\RXFKDQJH\RXUPLQGOHWPHNQRZ 22 6RWKDWZDVDURXQG-XQHWK" 23 $ 24 4ULJKW" 25 $<HV $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 4$OOULJKW6R\RXKDGEHHQWU\LQJWR 2 UHDFKDQDJUHHPHQWZLWK6DQGUD:KLWHSULRUWR 3 -XQHWK" 4 $&RUUHFW 5 4$QGZHUHXQDEOHWRGRVR" 6 $<HV 7 4$QGQRWWKDW\RXQHHGWRUHDGHYHU\SDJH 8 EXWLVLWIDLUWRVD\WKDW\RXH[FKDQJHGVRPH 9 SRUWLRQVRI\RXUV\QRSVLVZLWK6DQGUDGXULQJWKH 10 FRXUVHRI\RXULQWHUDFWLRQVZLWKKHU" 11 $<HV$QGVKHUHZURWHVRPHSRUWLRQRILW 12 DVZHOOZKLFK,GRQ WHYHQNQRZLWPLJKWEHLQ 13 KHUH,WPLJKWQRWEHLQKHUH,GRQ WNQRZZKDW 14 , YHNHSWRUQRWNHSW 15 42ND\$QGGLG\RXJHWDGYLFHIURP6KDURQ 16 &KXUFKHUZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHWHUPVXSRQZKLFK\RX 17 VKRXOGEHORRNLQJIRUWKHJKRVWZULWLQJDJUHHPHQW" 18 $6KDURQLVWKHRQHZKRLQWURGXFHGPHWR 19 6DQGUD,FDQ WUHPHPEHUZKRZDVJLYLQJPHWKH 20 DGYLFH,W VJRLQJEDFNVRORQJDJR\RXNQRZ, 21 GRQ WZDQWWRSLQSRLQWVRPHERG\DQGVD\LWZDV 22 GHILQLWHO\WKHPLILWZDVQ W 23 6R\HDK, PMXVWQRWJRLQJWRFRPPHQWRQ 24 WKDWRQHZLWKRXWNQRZLQJ 25 42ND\<RXSUREDEO\KDYHHPDLOVWKRXJK Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 69 of 89 3DJH 1 GR\RXWKLQNSHUKDSV" 2 $,KDYHQ WVHHQWKHVHHPDLOVVLQFH 3 6R 4 42ND\, PJRLQJWRVKRZ\RX'HIHQGDQW V 5 ([KLELW 6 ([KLELWPDUNHG 7 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 70 of 89 3DJH 1 4$OOULJKW%XW\RXEDVHGLWRQ 2 $2QP\VSHDNLQJ 3 4ZKDW" 4 $ZLWKWKH)%, 5 42ND\$QG 6 05(':$5'6-XVWOHWKHUILQLVKKHU 7 TXHVWLRQEHIRUH\RXDQVZHU 8 7+('(321(172ND\ 9 05(':$5'6,MXVWZDQWWKHUHFRUG 10 FOHDU 11 4%<060(11,1*(5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 20 060(11,1*(5'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 21 4%<060(11,1*(5'R\RXUHFRJQL]HWKHVH 22 GRFXPHQWVWKLVGRFXPHQWZKLFKLVDQRWKHU 23 FRPSRVLWHH[KLELW" 24 $<HV 25 4'R\RXUHFRJQL]HLW" Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 71 of 89 3DJH 1 $2KOLNH,VDLG,GRQ WUHFRJQL]HLWEXW 2 LWREYLRXVO\FRPHVIURP 3 4<RXUHPDLODGGUHVV" 4 $<HV 5 41RZZKDWHPDLODGGUHVVLVWKDWH[DFWO\ 6 RQWKHILUVWSDJHRIWKLVH[KLELW" 7 $#LFORXGFRPWKDWPXVWEHIURPDSKRQH 8 46RWKDW VGLIIHUHQWIURPWKHRWKHUHPDLO 9 DGGUHVV" 10 $<HDK,GRQ WDFWXDOO\NQRZDERXWWKDW 11 HPDLODGGUHVV,REYLRXVO\XVHGLW,WKDVP\ 12 KXVEDQG VQDPHRQLW5REHUW*LXIIUH 13 4$QGLVWKHHPDLOVLJQHGE\\RXUKXVEDQG" 14 $1RLW VVLJQHGE\PH 15 42ND\$QGLQWKHVXEMHFWOLQH\RXZURWH 16 9LUJLQLD5REHUWV-DQH'RH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+HVXJJHVWHGWU\LQJWRJHWDKROGRI 12 DQ\SKRWRVRUYLGHRUHFRUGLQJVUHOHDVHGE\WKH)%,WR 13 DVVLVWRXUFDVHIXUWKHULQSURYLGLQJVLFKRZPXFK 14 SHGRSKLOLDRFFXUUHGE\-HIIUH\DQGWKHPDQ\RWKHU 15 PRQVWHUVKHREOLJHGZLWKXQGHUDJHJLUOV 16 42ND\ 17 $,IWKLVLVDSRVVLELOLW\SOHDVHOHWPH 18 NQRZVR,FDQJLYH\RX%UDG(GZDUGVP\DWWRUQH\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 3DJH 1 FDQ WUHPHPEHULI,VSRNHWR3DXOLQWKHSKRQHLQ 2 $XVWUDOLDRULI,PHWKLPLQSHUVRQLQ)ORULGD 3 4'R\RXUHPHPEHUZKHQ\RXVLJQHGDQ\NLQG 4 RIIHHDJUHHPHQWZLWKKLP" 5 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 6 $8PWKHZHOOWKHILUVWWLPH,ZRXOG 7 KDYHVLJQHGDQDJUHHPHQWZRXOGKDYHEHHQLQ)ORULGD 8 4%<060(11,1*(5:KHQ\RXZHUHOLYLQJ 9 LQ7LWXVYLOOH" 10 $$VIDUDVP\NQRZOHGJHUHPLQGVPH, 11 PHDQ, PORRNLQJDWHPDLOVWKDW,FDQ WHYHQ 12 UHPHPEHUVHQGLQJ,W VDSRVVLELOLW\,FRXOGKDYH 13 VLJQHGHDUOLHUEXWDVIDUDV,UHPHPEHU 14 42ND\'R\RXUHFDOOHYHUKDYLQJHPDLO 15 FRPPXQLFDWLRQVZLWK6KDURQ&KXUFKHUDERXWKHU 16 SXEOLVKLQJWKHILUVWVHULDORI\RXUERRN" 17 $6HULDOZKDWGRHVWKDWPHDQ", PVRUU\ 18 4/LNHDVHTXHO 19 $$VHTXHOWRP\ERRN" 20 48PKXP 21 $0\ERRNKDVQHYHUEHHQSXEOLVKHG 22 45LJKW'R\RXUHPHPEHUHYHUHPDLOLQJ 23 ZLWK6KDURQDERXWKHUEHLQJWKHRQHZKRZRXOGSXEOLVK 24 DQ\VXEVHTXHQWIROORZXSERRN" 25 $,I\RXKDYHVRPHWKLQJLQIURQWRI\RXWR Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 72 of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,VPRQH\RQHRIWKH 20 UHDVRQV\RXZDQWWRZLQ" 21 05(':$5'66DPHREMHFWLRQ 22 $0RUHWKDQWKHPRQH\,ZDQWWRVHH 23 *KLVODLQHDQG-HIIUH\RZQXSWRZKDWWKH\KDYHGRQH 24 DQGSD\IRUWKHSULFH\HV 25 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 GD\VEHFDXVHWKHSODFHZDVGLVJXVWLQJDQGWKHERVV 2 ZDVMXVWKRUULEOH 3 ,GLGQ WJHWSDLGIURPWKHPEXW,JRW 4 HPSOR\HGE\WKHP$QGRWKHUWKDQWKDWWKHODVWWLPH 5 ,ZRUNHGZDVLQHQGHGLQIRU(7$XVWUDOLD 6 4'LG\RXTXLWWKDWMREDIWHUWZRGD\V 7 EHFDXVHWKHSODFHZDVGLVJXVWLQJ" 8 $,WZDVYLOH2ND\7KH\KDGWKHWKH 9 ZKROHSODFHZDVFORVHGGRZQ7KHUHVWDXUDQWZDV 10 FORVHGGRZQIRUDSHULRGRIOLNHVL[PRQWKV$QG 11 KHZDQWHGPHWRJRLQWRWKLVIUHH]HUDUHDWKDWKDGD 12 GHDGUDWLQLWDQGOLNHWKLVWKLFNLQGLFDWLQJOD\HU 13 RIPROGDWWKHERWWRP$QGKHZDQWHGPHWRFOHDQLW 14 4$OOULJKW 15 $$QG,ZDVMXVWOLNH1R 16 4-XVWFKHFNLQJGLG\RXTXLWRUGLGKHILUH 17 \RX" 18 $1R,GHILQLWHO\ZDONHGRXWRIWKDWRQH 19 KDQGVXS 20 42ND\, PJRLQJWRGRRQHPRUHGRFXPHQW, 21 KDYHTXLFNO\ 22 ([KLELWPDUNHG 23 4%<060(11,1*(5, OOVKRZ\RX 24 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELWDQRWKHUFRPSRVLWHH[KLELW 25 'R\RXUHFRJQL]HWKHWRDQGIURPVRQWKLVHPDLO" ■ ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 73 of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 11 7+('(321(177KDQN\RX 12 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\'R\RX 13 UHFRJQL]HWKHVHVHULHVRIHPDLOV" 14 $6RIDU,PHDQLW VGHILQLWHO\IURPPH 15 WRKHU2UDFWXDOO\0LFKDHO7KRPDVLVWKH 16 SKRWRJUDSKHUWKDWZRUNHGZLWKKHUMXVWWREHFOHDU 17 4$QGLVVKHRQHRIWKHWZRWKH 18 UHFLSLHQWVRIWKHILUVWSDJHHPDLO"<RXDQGVKH 19 UHFHLYHGDQHPDLOIURP0LFKDHO7KRPDVLVWKDW 20 ULJKW" 21 $<HV 22 42ND\ 23 05(':$5'6,WKLQNVKHZDQWV\RXWR 24 ORRNDQGPDNHVXUH\RXUHFRJQL]HWKHP 25 4%<060(11,1*(5<HDKGR\RXUHFRJQL]H $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 WKHGRFXPHQWWKHHPDLOV" 2 $/LNH,VDLGWKHVHDUHEDFNLQEXW 3 LW VIURPP\HPDLODGGUHVV,UHFRJQL]HWKDW, 4 UHFRJQL]H6KDURQ VQDPHDQG,UHFRJQL]H0LFKDHO 5 7KRPDV 6 4'R\RXKDYHDQ\UHDVRQWRGRXEWWKDWWKH 7 HPDLOVIURP0DUFKRI 8 $,GRQ WKDYHDQ\ 9 4IURP\RXUVHOIDQG0V&KXUFKHUDUH 10 DFFXUDWHO\UHIOHFWHGIURPWKHGRFXPHQWVWDNHQIURP 11 \RXUFRPSXWHUKHUH" 12 $,KDYHQRUHDVRQWRGRXEWWKDW 13 42ND\ 14 ([KLELWPDUNHG 15 4%<060(11,1*(5'HIHQGDQW V 16 ([KLELW$JDLQHPDLOVEHWZHHQ\RXUHPDLO 17 DGGUHVVDQG6KDURQ&KXUFKHUIURP0D\RI 18 'R\RXUHFRJQL]H\RXUHPDLODGGUHVV" 19 $<HV 20 4$QG6KDURQ&KXUFKHU VHPDLODGGUHVV" 21 $<HV 22 4$QG\RX UHVLJQLQJ\RXUHPDLOVWRKHU 23 0XFKORYH;2;2-HQQD$QGVKH VVLJQLQJKHUHPDLOV 24 WR\RX/RYH6KD]DFRUUHFW" 25 $&RUUHFW Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 74 of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 25 4%<060(11,1*(57KLVLV([KLELW 3DJH 1 HPDLOVEHWZHHQ\RXUVHOIDQG6KDURQ&KXUFKHUIURP 2 -XQHRI" 3 $8PKXP<HVVRUU\ 4 4$QGDJDLQ6KD]DDQG-HQQD6KD]D-HQQD 5 -HQQD6KD]DULJKW" 6 $<HV 7 4$QGDWWKHERWWRPRIWKLVILUVWSDJHLV 8 6KDURQ&KXUFKHUJLYLQJ\RXDGYLFHUHJDUGLQJWKH 9 SXUFKDVHE\9DQLW\)DLURI\RXUSLFWXUHZLWK3ULQFH 10 $QGUHZ" 11 $0D\,KDYHWLPHWRUHDGLWSOHDVH" 12 43OHDVH 13 $$UHZHWDONLQJDERXWWKHYHU\ERWWRPRQH 14 RUWKHRQHLQWKHNLQGRIPLGGOHERWWRP" 15 47KHYHU\ERWWRPRQH 16 $,ZRXOGOHW9)EX\\RXUSLFWXUHYLD%UDG 17 7KHELJJDPEOHZRXOGEHWROHWKLPDOVRJLYHWKHPD 18 VWDWHPHQW 19 45LJKW 20 $'HSRQHQWSHUXVHGGRFXPHQWVRWWRYRFH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 3DJH 1 $<HV<HDK 2 4$QGRQWKDWVHFRQGSDJHWKHUH VD 3 UHGDFWLRQ:KRLVZKRLVLQWKDWUHGDFWLRQ" 4 $,KDYHQRLGHD 5 4<RXGRQ WNQRZ" 6 $1R,GRQ WNQRZ 7 46RZKRDUHWKHWZRZRUOG VPRVWUHVSHFWHG 8 SROLWLFLDQV" DQGZKR" 9 $,GRQ WNQRZ 10 4'R\RXUHFDOOHYHUWHOOLQJ6KDURQ&KXUFKHU 11 WKDW\RXZHUHWUDIILFNHGWRWZRRIWKHZRUOG VPRVW 12 UHVSHFWHGSROLWLFLDQV DQGVRPHERG\ 13 HOVH" 14 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRIRUP 15 $,VWKDWKHUZRUGLQJ"7KLVLVIURPKHU 16 6RWKLVLVKHUZRUGLQJ 17 4%<060(11,1*(55LJKW 18 $,IVKHFRQVLGHUHGWKHPWREHWKHZRUOG V 19 PRVWUHVSHFWHGSROLWLFLDQVWKDWZRXOGEHKHU 20 RSLQLRQQRWPLQH 21 42ND\%XW\RXUHFHLYHGWKLVHPDLODQG 22 UHVSRQGHGWRLWFRUUHFW" 23 $,VWKHWRSRQHDERYHWKDWZKDW,UHVSRQGHG 24 WR"6RUU\,WMXVWFRQIXVHVPHEHFDXVHLWJRHV 25 XSZDUGVGRHVQ WLWQRWGRZQZDUGV:H UHQRW Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 75 of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,QWKHOLQHUHIHUUHG 23 WRDVWZRRIWKHZRUOG VPRVWUHVSHFWHGSROLWLFLDQV" 24 $,WFRXOGEH%XWDJDLQ,ZRXOGEH 25 PDNLQJDQDVVXPSWLRQEHFDXVH,GRQ WNQRZZKRWKDW 3DJH 1 QDPHLV 2 4,GRQ WHLWKHU 3 $2ND\ 4 40D\EHRXUODZ\HUVFDQWHOOXV 5 060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW/DVWRQHDQG 6 WKHQ\RXFDQJHW\RXUEUHDN 7 ([KLELWPDUNHG 8 4%<060(11,1*(5'HIHQGDQW V 9 ([KLELW$JDLQHPDLOVWRDQGIURP\RXUVHOIDQG 10 6KDURQ&KXUFKHUFRUUHFW" 11 $<HV 12 4$QGLQWKLVHPDLOLW VGDWHG 13 RQWKHILUVWSDJHRIWKLVFRPSRVLWHHPDLO" 14 $<HV 15 46KHLVHQFRXUDJLQJ\RXWRGRDERRN 16 FRUUHFW" 17 $$VVKHKDVIURPWKHEHJLQQLQJ\HV 18 45LJKW$QGVKHVXJJHVWHGDURPDQDFOHI 19 'R\RXNQRZZKDWWKDWPHDQV" 20 $1R 21 42QWKHWKLUGSDJHEDFNVKHZURWH\RXWR 22 FRPSOLPHQW\RXDERXW'DYLG%RLHVWDNLQJ\RXUFDVH 23 FRUUHFW" 24 $'HSRQHQWSHUXVHGGRFXPHQWVRWWRYRFH 25 -XVWUHDGLQJDERXW'DYLG%RLHVWDNLQJ\RXU 3DJH 1 FDVH+RZIDQWDVWLF-HQQD+DYH\RXDVNHGKLPKRZ 2 KH GIHHODERXWUHYLYLQJ\RXUERRN",WZRXOGEHDQ 3 LQFUHGLEOHVKDPHLIWKHRWKHUSURMHFWOLIWV\RXU 4 VWRU\ZKLFKLWFRXOGDWOHDVWVRPHZKDW-DUUHGLV 5 VWLOOYHU\NHHQWRUHSUHVHQW\RX, PDIUDLG, 6 VFUHZHG\RXE\VWHHULQJ\RXWR0LPL 7 ,MXVWKDGDJUHDWZHHNHQGLQ/$RQD 8 FHOHEULW\VWRU\*RWWRJRWR5RGHR'ULYH 9 0XFKORYH6KD]D 10 <HV 11 46RVKH VHQFRXUDJLQJ\RXWRKDYH'DYLG 12 %RLHVDOVRKHOS\RXLQWKHERRNZULWLQJGHSDUWPHQW 13 ULJKW" 14 05(':$5'62EMHFWWRWKHIRUP 15 0LVFKDUDFWHUL]HVWKHH[KLELW 16 $,VWKHTXHVWLRQSHQGLQJ" 17 4%<060(11,1*(5<HV 18 $6KH\HDKVKHHQFRXUDJHGPHWR, 19 PHDQRQFHVKHVDZWKDW\RXNQRZWKHUHZDVPRUH 20 OLWLJDWLRQJRLQJRQVKHWKRXJKWOLNHVKHVD\V 21 +RZIDQWDVWLF$QGXSXQWLOUHFHQWO\VKH VVWLOO 22 EHHQWU\LQJWRJHWPHWRJHWWKHERRNRXW 23 4$QGLQ0D\RIGR\RXKDYHGLG\RX 24 KDYHDQ\DFWLYHDJUHHPHQWWRSXEOLVK\RXUERRN" 25 $,Q0D\RIQR-DUUHGZDQWHGWRGR $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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 23 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:HDUHEDFNRQWKH 24 UHFRUGDW 25 4%<060(11,1*(5:KHQ\RXZHUH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 76 of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$OOULJKW6R\RX 19 ZHUHHPDLOLQJZLWKKHU 20 $8PKXP 21 4JHWWLQJKHUDGYLFHDERXWZKHWKHURUQRW 22 WRVHOO\RXU3ULQFH$QGUHZSLFWXUHWR9DQLW\)DLU" 23 $5LJKW 24 46KHDVNHG\RXWRUXQVRPHLQIRUPDWLRQE\ 25 %UDG 3DJH 1 $<HV 2 4(GZDUGV$QG\RXVDLGWKDW\RXZHUH 3 JRLQJWRGRWKDW" 4 $8PKXP 5 4$QGWKHQ\RXVSRNHWR0U(GZDUGV 6 FRUUHFW" 7 $,GRQ WNQRZLI,VSRNHWRKLPRULI, 8 HPDLOHGKLP 9 42ND\$QGWKHQGLG\RXUHSRUWEDFNWR 10 6KDURQ&KXUFKHUZKDW\RXKDGGLVFXVVHGZLWK 11 0U(GZDUGV" 12 $, PQRWWRRVXUH/LNH,VDLGJRLQJEDFN 13 WRWKHHPDLOVORRNDWWKLVSLOHKHUH,W V 14 LPSRVVLEOHIRUPHWRNQRZ 15 46R\RXZHUHKDYLQJDORWRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQV 16 ZLWK6KDURQ&KXUFKHULQ" 17 $,Q\HV 18 4$OOULJKW$QG0U(GZDUGVZDV\RXU 19 DWWRUQH\LQFRUUHFW" 20 $<HV 21 4$QGGLG\RXHYHUKDYH6KDURQ&KXUFKHU 22 GUDIWIRU\RXHPDLOWRVHQGWR0U(GZDUGV" 23 $<HV,EHOLHYH,EHOLHYHVKHGLG 24 4$QGZK\GLGVKHGUDIWHPDLOVIRU\RXWR 25 VHQGWR0U(GZDUGV" 3DJH 1 $,EHOLHYHWKHUHZDVDQGWKLVLVMXVW 2 JRLQJRIIP\UHFROOHFWLRQ 3 48PKXP 4 $,EHOLHYHWKHUHZDVDWLPHZKHQVKHZDV 5 RK*RG,FDQ WUHPHPEHU,UHDOO\FDQ WUHPHPEHU 6 DQGGRQ WZDQWWRVD\DQ\WKLQJZLWKRXWORRNLQJDW 7 WKDWH[DFWHPDLO'R\RXKDYHLWWRVKRZPH" 8 4:HOO, PVXUHLW VSUREDEO\LQWKHUHEXW 9 ,GRQ WZDQWWRWDNHWKHWLPHWRORRNIRULWQRZ 10 $2ND\ 11 46R,XQGHUVWDQG\RX UHMXVWUHSHDWLQJZKDW 12 \RXUHFDOOIURP\RXUPHPRU\ 13 $<HV 14 4$QGLWPD\QRWEHDFFXUDWHEHFDXVH\RX UH 15 QRWORRNLQJDWWKHGRFXPHQW, YHJRWWKDWFDYHDW 16 :KDWGR\RXUHFDOOMXVWDV\RX UHVLWWLQJ 17 WKHUH" 18 $,NQRZWKHUHZDVHPDLOVWKDW6KDURQVHQW 19 WRPHVXJJHVWLQJWRVD\WR%UDG(GZDUGV,NQRZWKDW 20 ,GRQ WUHPHPEHURUUHFDOOH[DFWO\ZKDWZDVLQWKRVH 21 VWDWHPHQWV 22 42ND\$QGGLG\RXVHQGWKRVHHPDLOVWR 23 0U(GZDUGVDV\RXUHFDOOWRGD\" 24 $,GRQ WNQRZ, PVRUU\ 25 4$QGGR\RXNQRZLI\RXZHQWEDFNWR6KDURQ $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 &KXUFKHUDQGWROGKHUDERXWWKHFRQYHUVDWLRQVRU 2 HPDLOV\RXKDGZLWK0U(GZDUGV" 3 $6RPHRIWKHP, PVXUH\HV 4 4%HFDXVH\RXZHUHLQIDLUO\UHJXODUFRQWDFW 5 ZLWK6KDURQ&KXUFKHUDWWKDWWLPHFRUUHFW" 6 $5LJKWDWWKDWWLPH 7 4$OOULJKW,ZDQWWRLQWURGXFHWR\RX 8 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 9 ([KLELWPDUNHG 10 4%<060(11,1*(5+DYH\RXVHHQWKLV 11 GRFXPHQWEHIRUH" 12 $,GRQ WNQRZLI, YHVHHQWKLVVSHFLILF 13 GRFXPHQWEHIRUHEXW, YHVHHQVRPHWKLQJFORVHWRLW 14 ,WKLQN 15 4$OOULJKW'R\RXVHHWKHGDWHRQWKH 16 GRFXPHQW" 17 $0DUFKWK 18 40DUFKWK" 19 $,VHH0DUFKWKVRUU\ 20 4+PP 21 $/RQGRQ0DUFKWK 22 05(':$5'6%RWKGDWHVDUHWKHUH 23 060(11,1*(5, PVXUHWKH\DUH, P 24 MXVWQRWVHHLQJWKHRQHWKDW\RX UHVHHLQJ 25 7+('(321(172K, PVRUU\ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 77 of 89 3DJH 1 060(11,1*(57KDW VRND\ 2 7+('(321(17<HDK6RUU\DERXWWKDW 3 060(11,1*(52ND\ 4 05(':$5'62QHLVULJKWRQWRSRIWKH 5 RWKHU 6 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 $1RWEHLQJDEOHWRUHPHPEHUUHDGLQJWKLVLQ 2 LW VKDUGWRVD\%XWLW VWKHVDPHWKLQJWKDW 3 , PJRLQJWKURXJKULJKWQRZ,PHDQVKH VGHQLHGLW 4 DJDLQ$QGLWLVSDLQIXO,W VSK\VLFDOO\SDLQIXO 5 ,DPWDNLQJPHGLFDWLRQWRKHOSPHGHDOZLWKWKLV 6 $QG 7 42ND\, PMXVWOLPLWLQJ\RXULJKWQRZWR 8 0DUFKRI 9 05(':$5'6,ZRXOGMXVWDVNWKDWVKH V 10 DEOHWRILQLVKKHUDQVZHUWKRXJKSOHDVH 11 060(11,1*(5:HOOWKHDQVZHULV 12 QRQUHVSRQVLYHVR 13 05(':$5'6,Q\RXURSLQLRQLW VQRW 14 UHVSRQVLYH 15 4%<060(11,1*(5,ZDQW\RXWR 16 XQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHTXHVWLRQLVUHODWHGWRDQ\ 17 SK\VLFDOV\PSWRPV\RXVXIIHUHGLQ0DUFKRIDVD 18 FRQVHTXHQFHRI'HIHQGDQW V([KLELWEHLQJLVVXHG 19 $,I,ZRXOGKDYHVHHQWKLVLQ0DUFKWK 20 WKLVZRXOGKDYHEHHQKDUPIXOWRPH 21 42ND\'R\RXUHFDOODV\RXVLWKHUH 22 WRGD\H[SHULHQFLQJDQ\SK\VLFDOV\PSWRPVDVD 23 FRQVHTXHQFHRI'HIHQGDQW V([KLELWEHLQJLVVXHGWR 24 WKHSUHVV" 25 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ$VNHGDQG Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 78 of 89 3DJH 1 DQVZHUHG/DFNVSUHGLFDWH 2 $,KDYHEHHQVXIIHULQJIURP*KLVODLQH 3 0D[ZHOODQG-HIIUH\(SVWHLQVLQFHWKHVXPPHURI 4 6RKHDULQJDJDLQLQWKDWVKH VGHQLHGLWRI 5 FRXUVHLW VJRLQJWRKXUWPH 6 'LG,KHDUDERXWWKLVLQ",FDQ W 7 WHOO\RX,KRQHVWO\KDYH 8 ,QLVZKHQ,NQRZWKDWVKHGHQLHGLW 9 $QGDJDLQ,KDYHQ WVWRSSHGVXIIHULQJIURPWKH 10 UHSHUFXVVLRQVWKDWWKH\SXWPHWKURXJK 11 4%<060(11,1*(5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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 79 of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 3DJH 1 4%<060(11,1*(5, PJRLQJWRJLYH\RX 2 'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 3 $<HV 4 4$OOULJKW+DYH\RXVHHQWKLVGRFXPHQW 5 EHIRUH" 6 $<HV 7 4$QGZKDWGR\RXXQGHUVWDQGLWWREH" 8 $ VRXQGVOLNHD35LI 9 , PQRWULJKWLI, PQRWZURQJ6HQWRU 10 VXEMHFWLV*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO,GRQ WNQRZ 11  13 ,WVD\V7RZKRPLWPD\FRQFHUQ3OHDVH 14 ILQGDWWDFKHGFUHGLEOHVWDWHPHQWRQEHKDOIRI 15 0V0D[ZHOO 16 $QGWKHQLWJRHVRQWRKHDUDERXWWKDW 17 VKHLVVD\LQJ(DFKWLPHWKHVWRU\LVUHWROGLW 18 FKDQJHVZLWKQHZVDODFLRXVGHWDLOVDERXWSXEOLF 19 ILJXUHVDQGZRUOGOHDGHUVDQGQRZLWLVDOOHJHGE\ 20 0V5REHUWVWKDW$ODQ'HUVKRZLW]LVLQYROYHGLQ 21 KDYLQJVH[XDOUHODWLRQVZLWKKHUZKLFKKHGHQLHV 22 0V5REHUWV FODLPVDUHREYLRXVOLHVDQG 23 VKRXOGEHWUHDWHGDVVXFKDQGQRWSXEOLFL]HGDVQHZV 24 DVWKH\DUHGHIDPDWRU\*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOO VRULJLQDO 25 UHVSRQVHWRWKHOLHVDQGGHIDPDWRU\FODLPVUHPDLQV 3DJH 1 WKHVDPH0D[ZHOOVWURQJO\GHQLHVH[FXVHPH 2 ([FXVHPHVWURQJO\GHQLHVDOOHJDWLRQVRIDQ 3 XQVDYRU\QDWXUHZKLFKKDYHDSSHDUHGLQWKH%ULWLVK 4 SUHVVDQGHOVHZKHUHDQGUHVHUYHVKHUULJKWWRVHHN 5 UHGUHVVDWWKHUHSHWLWLRQRIVXFKROGGHIDPDWRU\ 6 FODLPV 7 4$OOULJKW+DYH\RXVHHQWKLVVWDWHPHQW 8 EHIRUH" 9 $, YHVHHQLWUHFHQWO\\HV 10 4$OOULJKW:KDWKDYH\RXGLVFXVVHG 11 WKLVVWDWHPHQWZLWK0V/LJKWIRRW",GRQ WNQRZLI 12 VKH VDGRFWRURUZKDW 13 $3V\FKLDWULVW\HDK 14 4,VVKHDQ0'" 15 $,GRQ WNQRZZKDWKHUOHYHOVRIFUHGHQWLDO 16 DUH, PVXUHVKHLV 17 42ND\:KHQLVWKHILUVWWLPHWKDW\RXVDZ 18 WKHVWDWHPHQW" 19 $7KLVIXOOVWDWHPHQW,KDYHRQO\VHHQ 20 WKURXJKGLVFRYHU\7KHRULJLQDOVWDWHPHQWWKDW,VDZ 21 LQWKHSUHVVZDV0V5REHUWV FODLPVDUHREYLRXV 22 OLHVDQGVRRQVRIRUWK,GRQ WUHPHPEHUVHHLQJ 23 WKLVLQWKHSUHVV 24 42ND\6RWKHSDUWWKDW\RXUHPHPEHU 25 VHHLQJLQWKHSUHVVLV0V5REHUWV FODLPVDUH $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 REYLRXVOLHV" 2 $<HV 3 4$Q\WKLQJHOVHDERXWWKLV" 4 $,FDQ WUHPHPEHUZKDWHOVHVKHSULQWHGLQ 5 WKHSUHVV,W VDYHU\KRUULEOHWKLQJIRUKHUWRGR 6 WXUQDURXQGDQGFDOOPHDOLDUDIWHUHYHU\WKLQJWKDW 7 VKHNQRZVVKH VGRQH$QG,GLGQ WH[SHFWKHUWR 8 FRPHRXWDQGEHWUXWKIXO 9 -HIIUH\(SVWHLQKDVQ WHYHQLVVXHGD 10 VWDWHPHQW 11 46RUU\, PVRUU\LI\RXPLVXQGHUVWRRGP\ 12 TXHVWLRQ 13 $<HV 14 4:DVWKHUHDQ\WKLQJHOVHZLWKLQWKLV 15 VWDWHPHQWWKDW\RXUHFDOOVHHLQJLQWKHSUHVVEHVLGHV 16 WKHOLQH0V5REHUWV FODLPVDUHREYLRXVOLHV" 17 $:LWKRXWVD\LQJSHUFHQW,WKLQNWKDW 18 WKHRULJLQDODOOHJDWLRQVDUHQRWQHZDQGKDYHEHHQ 19 IXOO\UHVSRQGHGWREHVKRZQWREHXQWUXH,GRQ W 20 NQRZLIWKDW VLQWKHSUHVVRUQRWEXW, YHUHDG 21 WKLVEHIRUH 22 6R,GRQ WNQRZLI, PFRQIXVLQJWKLVZLWK 23 ZKDW, YHUHDGRXWRIWKLVRUZKDW, YHUHDGLQWKH 24 SUHVV7KHPDLQWKLQJLV,NQRZVKHFDOOHGPHD 25 OLDUDQGWKDW VZKDWVKHSXEOLFL]HG - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 80 of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 13 4$QG,DVNHG\RXZKDWV\PSWRPVKDG\RX 14 H[SHULHQFHG 15 05(':$5'66KH VJRLQJWRILQLVKKHU 16 DQVZHUWRWKLVTXHVWLRQ<RXFXWKHURIIVRPDQ\ 17 WLPHV 18 060(11,1*(5,WKDVQRWKLQJWRGRZLWK 19 WKLV 20 05(':$5'6,WDEVROXWHO\GRHV%HFDXVH 21 WKLVLVDSV\FKRORJLFDOGDPDJHVFODLPDQGVKHLV 22 WU\LQJWRH[SODLQWR\RXZKDWWKRVHGDPDJHVDUH 23 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\:KDWDUH\RXU 24 V\PSWRPVWKDW\RXH[SHULHQFHGVLQFH-DQXDU\QG 25 WKDWDUHQHZ" $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 $9HU\VWURQJDQ[LHW\DWWDFNVEDGSDQLF 2 DWWDFNV0\WKURDWFORVHVXS,FDQ WEUHDWKH, 3 YRPLWZKHQ,KDYHDQ[LHW\DWWDFNV0\WKLVLV 4 SHUVRQDOEXWP\VH[OLIHKDVVXIIHUHG0\PDUULDJH 5 KDVVXIIHUHG3V\FKRORJLFDOO\LW VMXVWKXUWPHDOO 6 RYHUDJDLQ,PHDQWKH\ YHKXUWPHEHIRUHDQGQRZ 7 WKH\ YHKXUWPHDJDLQE\GRLQJWKLV 8 $QG,IHOWOLNH,ZDVLQWKHSURFHVVRI 9 KHDOLQJEHIRUHWKLVFDPHRXWEHFDXVH,KDGRSHQHGXS 10 WKLVZRQGHUIXOFKDULW\FDOOHG9LFWLPV5HIXVH6LOHQFH 11 $QGWKHQP\DLPZDVWRKHDOE\KHOSLQJRWKHUJLUOV 12 JHWRXWRIWKHVLWXDWLRQVWKDW,ZDVLQEHIRUH 13 $QGP\ODZ\HUVZHUHQLFHHQRXJKWRKHOS 14 PH,KDYHWKLVEHDXWLIXOZHEVLWHZKHUH\RXFDQ 15 FOLFNRQLQDQ\VWDWHDQG\RXFDQILQGDSODFH, 16 KDYHSHUVRQDOO\FDOOHGDOORIWKHPDQGWKH\ZLOOKHOS 17 \RXJHWRXWRIWKHVLWXDWLRQWKDW\RX UHLQ7KH\ 18 ZLOOJHW\RXPHGLFDOKHOS7KH\ZLOOJHW\RXOHJDO 19 DGYLFH,WKLQN,ZDVLQWKHUHDOO\JRRGSURFHVVRI 20 KHDOLQJ$QGZKHQWKLVFDPHRXWLWMXVWUXLQHGPH 21 DOORYHUDJDLQ 22 4%<060(11,1*(5$OOULJKW7HOOPH 23 DOORIWKHGDPDJHVWKDW\RXFODLPRFFXUUHGWR\RX 24 EHFDXVHRI'HIHQGDQW V([KLELW 25 $0\UHSXWDWLRQP\SV\FKRORJLFDODEXVH Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 81 of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ase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 82 of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 3DJH 1 ZHUHSXWLQ 2 4+DVDQ\RQHHOVHFDOOHG\RXDOLDULQWKH 3 SUHVV" 4 $<HV 5 4:KR" 6 $$ODQ'HUVKRZLW] 7 4$Q\RQHHOVH" 8 $*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOREYLRXVO\ 9 4$Q\RQHHOVH" 10 $1RWWKDW,NQRZRI 11 4+DVDQ\RQHHOVHSXEOLFO\GHQLHG\RXU 12 DOOHJDWLRQV" 13 $)URPZKDW*KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOVDLG" 14 4+DYH\RXVHHQDQ\SUHVVLQZKLFKDQRWKHU 15 SHUVRQKDVGHQLHG\RXUDOOHJDWLRQV" 16 05(':$5'62EMHFWLRQ9DJXH 17 $, YHVHHQDOOHJDWLRQVGHQLHGE\ 18 0V0D[ZHOO$QG, YHVHHQWKHDOOHJDWLRQVGHQLHGE\ 19 $ODQ'HUVKRZLW] 20 4%<060(11,1*(5$QG$ODQ'HUVKRZLW] 21 DFWXDOO\ZHQWRQ79DQGFDOOHG\RXDVHULDOOLDU 22 FRUUHFW" 23 $9HU\FRUUHFW 24 4<RXVDZWKDWFRUUHFW" 25 $<HV Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 83 of 89 3DJH 1 4$QGWKDWKXUW\RXUIHHOLQJV" 2 $%DGO\ 3 4'LG%XFNLQJKDP3DODFHLVVXHDGHQLDORI 4 \RXUDOOHJDWLRQ" 5 $<HVWKDW VDQRWKHURQH 6 4'LG3ULQFH$QGUHZPDNHDSXEOLFVWDWHPHQW 7 LQZKLFKKHGHQLHG\RXUDOOHJDWLRQV" 8 05(':$5'6)RUP 9 $,WKLQNKHGLG 10 4%<060(11,1*(5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IURPWKH 21 KDQGVRI-HIIUH\DQG*KLVODLQH 22 4%<060(11,1*(52ND\:KHQKDYH\RX 23 EHHQGLDJQRVHGZLWKDPHQWDOKHDOWKFRQGLWLRQILUVW" 24 $,GRQ WNQRZ,PHDQ, YHEHHQWROGWKDW 25 , YHJRW <RXNQRZ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 84 of 89 3DJH 1 4:KHQZHUH\RXILUVWWROGWKDW" 2 $:HOOHDUO\LQHDUO\LQ,EHOLHYH 3 LVWKHILUVWWLPHWKDW,ZDVVXIIHULQJIURP 4 $QGWKHQP\GRFWRU-XGLWK 5 /LJKWIRRWKDVLQ 6 7 $QG\RXNQRZ, YHUHFHQWO\VHHQDQRWKHU 8 GRFWRUZKRVDLGWKDW, YHJRWWKHH[DFWVDPHV\PSWRPV 9 WKDW-XGLWK/LJKWIRRWPHQWLRQHGZKLFKLV 10 11 12 4:KLFKGRFWRULVWKDW" 13 $<RXNQRZ,GRQ WKRQHVWO\NQRZKLVQDPH 14 4:KHQGLG\RXVHHWKLVQHZGRFWRU" 15 $8P 16 05(':$5'66RUU\,I\RX UHUHIHUULQJ 17 WRDGRFWRUWKDW VEHHQVHQWWR\RXE\RQHRI\RXU 18 ODZ\HUV 19 7+('(321(17<HV 20 05(':$5'6DWWKLVWLPH, P 21 LQVWUXFWLQJ\RXQRWWRDQVZHU 22 7+('(321(172ND\ 23 060(11,1*(5:DLW:KDWLVLW"<RX YH 24 VHHQDGRFWRUDQG\RX UHQRWJRLQJWRDQVZHUZKDW 25 GRFWRU\RX YHVHHQ" 3DJH 1 05(':$5'66XUH,ILW VDFRQVXOWLQJ 2 ZLWQHVVLQWKLVFDVHWKDWKDVVHHQKHUDWWKH 3 GLUHFWLRQRIDQDWWRUQH\WKDWKDVQRW\HWEHHQ 4 GLVFORVHGSHUDQ\H[SHUWZLWQHVVGLVFORVXUHWKHQ, P 5 LQVWUXFWLQJKHUQRWWRDQVZHUWKDWTXHVWLRQ 6 ,IWKDW VZKDW\RX UHUHIHUULQJWR, 7 GRQ WNQRZLIWKDW VZKDW\RX UHUHIHUULQJWR 8 7+('(321(177KDW VZKDW, PUHIHUULQJ 9 WR 10 4%<060(11,1*(5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 3DJH 1 WKHQH[WGD\WRR 2 4$OOULJKW'LG\RXVXIIHUIURPDQ[LHW\ 3 EHIRUHPHHWLQJ-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 4 $,ZDVQHYHUSUHVFULEHGDQ\WKLQJIRU 5 DQ[LHW\EHIRUH,PHW-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 6 47KDWZDVQ WP\TXHVWLRQ 7 $'LG, 8 4:HUH\RXVXIIHULQJIURPDQ[LHW\EHIRUH\RX 9 PHW-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 10 $,WKLQNDSHUVRQZKRKDVJRQHWKURXJKDV 11 PXFKWUDXPDDV,KDYHLQP\OLIHZRXOGVXIIHUIURP 12 TXLWHDIHZSUREOHPV%XWOLNH,VDLG,ZDVQHYHU 13 SUHVFULEHGDQ\WKLQJXQWLO,PHW-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ 14 4'LG\RXVXIIHUIURPSDQLFDWWDFNVEHIRUH 15 PHHWLQJ-HIIUH\(SVWHLQ" 16 $1RZKHUHQHDUDVEDGQR 17 46R\RXGLGVXIIHUIURP  18 7KH\MXVWZHUHQ WDVVHYHUHLVWKDWZKDW\RXU 19 WHVWLPRQ\LV" 20 $1RZKDW, PWU\LQJWRVD\LV,GLGKDYH 21 ,GLGKDYH ,KDGOLYHGDYHU\ 22 KDUGOLIHSULRUWRPHHWLQJ-HIIUH\(SVWHLQDVZHOO 23 $IWHUPHHWLQJ-HIIUH\(SVWHLQDQG 24 *KLVODLQH0D[ZHOOHYHU\WKLQJHVFDODWHG7KDW VZKHQ 25 ,VWDUWHGWRWDNH;DQD[DQGVPRNHPDULMXDQDWRKHOS - - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 85 of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 3DJH 1 GRFWRU 2 4,VWKHUHDQ\WKLQJWKDWVKH VUHFRPPHQGHG 3 WKDW\RXGRWKDW\RX UHQRWGRLQJ" 4 $,VWKHUHDQ\WKLQJWKDW,GRWKDWVKH 5 UHFRPPHQGV,GRQ W"6RUU\VD\WKDWRQHPRUHWLPH 6 47KDW VRND\,VWKHUHDQ\WKLQJWKDW 7 'U/LJKWIRRWKDVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDW\RXGRWKDW\RX 8 DUHQRWDFWXDOO\GRLQJ" 9 $UH\RXIROORZLQJKHUDGYLFH" 10 $<HV,DP 11 42ND\$QGZKDWKDV'U'RQDKXH 12 UHFRPPHQGHGWKDW\RXGR" 13 I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ I ■ I - ■ ■ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 86 of 89 3DJH 3DJH 1 3DJH 1 15 4$OOULJKW 16 060(11,1*(5, PJRLQJWRDVNWKDWZH 17 WDNHMXVWDEULHIEUHDNDQGWKDW,FDQKRSHIXOO\WKHQ 18 FRPHEDFNDQGMXVWDVNDIHZILQDOIROORZXS 19 TXHVWLRQVRND\" 20 7+('(321(172ND\ 21 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:HDUHRIIWKHUHFRUG 22 DW 23 5HFHVVWDNHQIURPSPWRSP 24 7+(9,'(2*5$3+(5:H UHEDFNRQWKH 25 UHFRUGDW $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 I I I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I I I - I I I I I I - ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ • ■ I ■ I ■ I ■ I ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ I I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I ■ ■ I ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 87 of 89 3DJH 1 4:KHQZDVLW" 2 $,GRQ WNQRZWKHH[DFWGDWH 3 4:KDW V\RXUEHVWUHFROOHFWLRQ" 4 $,GRQ WNQRZ,ZRXOGKDYHWRKDYHGDWHV 5 LQIURQWRIPH,I\RX YHJRWVRPHWKLQJWKDWKDVD 6 GDWHRQWKHUH, PKDSS\WRORRNDWLWDQGWHOO\RX 7 LW VULJKWRUZURQJ 8 4,WZDVDIHZPRQWKVDJRRUPDQ\PRQWKV 9 DJR" 10 $8PWRP\EHVWUHFROOHFWLRQLWZDVDERXW 11 D\HDUDJR 12 060(11,1*(5,KDYHQRIXUWKHU 13 TXHVWLRQVIRU\RXDWWKLVWLPH$V\RXNQRZWKHUH 14 DUHVRPHTXHVWLRQVWKDW\RXUHIXVHGWRDQVZHUDQG 15 RWKHUTXHVWLRQVWKDW\RXUDWWRUQH\GLUHFWHG\RXQRW 16 WRDQVZHU6RZHZLOOWDNHWKRVHXSZLWKWKH&RXUW 17 DQGPD\VHH\RXDJDLQ 18 7+('(321(172ND\ 19 05(':$5'6$QGMXVWDVDPDWWHURI 20 FODULILFDWLRQ,GRQ WEHOLHYHWKDWWKHUH VDQ\WKLQJ 21 VKH VUHIXVHGWRDQVZHU7KHUHPD\EHWKLQJVWKDW 22 , YHLQVWUXFWHGKHUQRWWRDQVZHUEHFDXVH,EHOLHYH 23 WKDWWKH\ZHUHSULYLOHJHGRUIRUZKDWHYHUUHDVRQ, 24 LQVWUXFWHGKHUQRWWRDQVZHUEXWVKHKDVQ WUHIXVHG 25 WRDQVZHUWKHP 3DJH 1 (LWKHUZD\WKHUHFRUGLVZKDWLWLV 2 060(11,1*(5,ZDVJRLQJWRVD\GR\RX 3 GLVSXWHWKDWWKHFRXUWUHSRUWHUKDVEHHQWDNLQJGRZQ 4 ZKDWZDVVDLGWKLVHQWLUHWLPH" 5 05(':$5'6, OOUHDGLW6KH OOUHDG 6 060(11,1*(5$FWXDOO\WKDW VDJRRG 7 TXHVWLRQ 8 4%<060(11,1*(5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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  3DJH 1 ,9,5*,1,$*,8))5(GRKHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDW 2 ,KDYHUHDGWKHIRUHJRLQJWUDQVFULSWDQGWKDWWKH 3 VDPHDQGDFFRPSDQ\LQJDPHQGPHQWVKHHWVLIDQ\ 4 FRQVWLWXWHDWUXHDQGFRPSOHWHUHFRUGRIP\ 5 WHVWLPRQ\ 6 7 8 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 9 6LJQDWXUHRI'HSRQHQW 1R$PHQGPHQWV 10 $PHQGPHQWV$WWDFKHG 11 $FNQRZOHGJHGEHIRUHPHWKLV 12 BBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 13 14 1RWDU\3XEOLFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 15 $GGUHVVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 16 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 17 0\FRPPLVVLRQH[SLUHVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 18 6HDO 19 20 21 .$0 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 88 of 89 3DJH 1 67$7(2)&2/25$'2 2 VV5(3257(5 6&(57,),&$7( 3 &2817<2)'(19(5 4 ,.HOO\$0DFNHUHWKGRKHUHE\FHUWLI\ 5 WKDW,DPD5HJLVWHUHG3URIHVVLRQDO5HSRUWHUDQG 6 1RWDU\3XEOLFZLWKLQWKH6WDWHRI&RORUDGRWKDW 7 SUHYLRXVWRWKHFRPPHQFHPHQWRIWKHH[DPLQDWLRQWKH 8 GHSRQHQWZDVGXO\VZRUQWRWHVWLI\WRWKHWUXWK 9 ,IXUWKHUFHUWLI\WKDWWKLVGHSRVLWLRQZDV 10 WDNHQLQVKRUWKDQGE\PHDWWKHWLPHDQGSODFHKHUHLQ 11 VHWIRUWKWKDWLWZDVWKHUHDIWHUUHGXFHGWR 12 W\SHZULWWHQIRUPDQGWKDWWKHIRUHJRLQJFRQVWLWXWHV 13 DWUXHDQGFRUUHFWWUDQVFULSW 14 ,IXUWKHUFHUWLI\WKDW,DPQRWUHODWHGWR 15 HPSOR\HGE\QRURIFRXQVHOIRUDQ\RIWKHSDUWLHVRU 16 DWWRUQH\VKHUHLQQRURWKHUZLVHLQWHUHVWHGLQWKH 17 UHVXOWRIWKHZLWKLQDFWLRQ 18 ,QZLWQHVVZKHUHRI,KDYHDIIL[HGP\ 19 VLJQDWXUHWKLVWKGD\RI0D\ 20 0\FRPPLVVLRQH[SLUHV$SULO 21 22 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .HOO\$0DFNHUHWK&55535&65 23 WK6WUHHW6XLWH 'HQYHU&RORUDGR 24 25 3DJH 1 $*5(1%/$1'2&28575(3257,1* 9,'(2,1& WK6WUHHW6XLWH 2 'HQYHU&RORUDGR $UDSDKRH$YHQXH6XLWH 3 %RXOGHU&RORUDGR 4 0D\ 5 6LJULG60F&DZOH\(VT %2,(66&+,//(5 )/(;1(5//3 6 (DVW/DV2ODV%RXOHYDUG 6XLWH 7 )RUW/DXGHUGDOH)/ 8 5H9LGHRWDSHG'HSRVLWLRQRI9,5*,1,$*,8))5( *LXIIUHY0D[ZHOO 9 &DVH1RFY5:6 10 7KHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGGHSRVLWLRQLVUHDG\IRUUHDGLQJ DQGVLJQLQJ3OHDVHDWWHQGWRWKLVPDWWHUE\ 11 IROORZLQJ%27+RIWKHLWHPVLQGLFDWHGEHORZ 12 BBBBB&DOODQGDUUDQJHZLWKXVWRUHDG DQGVLJQWKHGHSRVLWLRQLQRXURIILFH 13 B;;;B+DYHWKHGHSRQHQWUHDG\RXUFRS\DQGVLJQ 14 WKHVLJQDWXUHSDJHDQGDPHQGPHQWVKHHWVLI DSSOLFDEOHWKHVLJQDWXUHSDJHLVDWWDFKHG 15 BBBBB5HDGWKHHQFORVHGFRS\RIWKHGHSRVLWLRQDQG 16 VLJQWKHVLJQDWXUHSDJHDQGDPHQGPHQW VKHHWVLIDSSOLFDEOHWKHVLJQDWXUHSDJHLV 17 DWWDFKHG 18 B;;;B:,7+,1'$<62)7+('$7(2)7+,6/(77(5 19 BBBBB%\BBBBBBGXHWRDWULDOGDWHRIBBBBBBB 20 3OHDVHEHVXUHWKHRULJLQDOVLJQDWXUHSDJHDQG DPHQGPHQWVKHHWVLIDQ\DUH6,*1('%()25($127$5< 21 38%/,&DQGUHWXUQHGWR$JUHQ%ODQGRIRUILOLQJZLWK WKHRULJLQDOGHSRVLWLRQ$FRS\RIWKHVHFKDQJHV 22 VKRXOGDOVREHIRUZDUGHGWRFRXQVHORIUHFRUG 7KDQN\RX 23 $*5(1%/$1'2&28575(3257,1* 9,'(2,1& 24 25 FF$OO&RXQVHO 3DJH 1 $*5(1%/$1'2&28575(3257,1* 9,'(2,1& WK6WUHHW6XLWH 2 'HQYHU&RORUDGR $UDSDKRH$YHQXH6XLWH 3 %RXOGHU&RORUDGR 4 5 6 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 0D\ 7 *LXIIUHY0D[ZHOO &DVH1RFY5:6 8 9 7KHRULJLQDOYLGHRWDSHGGHSRVLWLRQZDVILOHGZLWK 10 /DXUD$0HQQLQJHU(VTRQDSSUR[LPDWHO\WKH 11 WKGD\RI0D\ 12 BBBBB6LJQDWXUHZDLYHG 13 BBBBB8QVLJQHGVLJQHGVLJQDWXUHSDJHDQG 14 DPHQGPHQWVKHHWVLIDQ\WREHILOHGDW WULDO 15 BBBBB5HDGLQJDQGVLJQLQJQRWUHTXHVWHGSXUVXDQW 16 WR&5&35XOHH 17 B;;;B8QVLJQHGDPHQGPHQWVKHHWVDQGRUVLJQDWXUH SDJHVVKRXOGEHIRUZDUGHGWR$JUHQ%ODQGRWR 18 EHILOHGLQWKHHQYHORSHDWWDFKHGWRWKH VHDOHGRULJLQDO 19 20 21 7KDQN\RX 22 $*5(1%/$1'2&28575(3257,1* 9,'(2,1& 23 FF$OO&RXQVHO 24 25 $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF 9,5*,1,$*,8))5( 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 0\FRPPLVVLRQH[SLUHVBBBBBBBBBBBB Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-38 Filed 01/03/24 Page 89 of 89 EXHIBIT K Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 35 B O ,IE S, S CH I LL ER & F LE X N ER LL P 401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301- 2211 • PH. 954.356.0011 • FAX 954.356.0022 VIA E-MAIL Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 lmenninger@hrnflaw.com Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell June 10, 2016 Case No.15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Ms. Menninger: Sigrid s. Mccawley, Esq. E-mail: smccawley@bsfllp.com On behalf of the Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, documents, Bates-stamped GIUFFRE005607 through GIUFFRE005613, are being produced pursuant to Defendant's Request for Production. Certain of the documents within this production have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with your proposed Protective Order. Please treat these documents accordingly. This production consists solely of all data that is responsive to Defendant's various requests for production from Ms. Giuffre's iCloud account. Attached to this letter, please also find an updated privilege log. If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, or if there are any issues with the media, please do not hesitate to contact me at (954) 356-0011. SSM:dk Enclosures Sincerely, WWW.BSFLLP.COM Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 35 From: Richards, Jason R. To: Robert Giuffre Subject: RE: Hi There Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:44:32 AM Hi Jenna, My suggestion is for you to do a Freedom of Information Act request (www.foia.gov) for the information you are looking for because I am not able to release information (should there be any) from FBI records. You need to include as many details as possible so they can focus and narrow the search. Explain that you are looking for information related to your recovery as a victim of Ron Eppinger. The process may take some time but it is the appropriate method for you to obtain any possible records regarding your recovery. Hope this helps. Best wishes, Jason -----Original Message-----From: Robert Giuffre [mailto:robiejennag@icloud.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:49 AM To: Richards, Jason R. Subject: Hi There G'day Jason, I know I am a pain in your rear right now and I don't want to be but I am so close to wrapping up an era, just need a couple dates confirmed is all. If you aren't sure about the dates which you have already said that's fine. I have turned the Wilton Manors police dept upside down looking through records and come up w nada. What was your acquaintance's name that took my statement about Ron Eppinger? Is it possible that it wasn't Wilton Manors and maybe it was somewhere else? I'm really racking my brain about this!! It would be a personal favor to me and I am so very much appreciative of anything you might know!! Thanks a lot mate!! Jenna Sent from my iPhone GIUFFRE005607 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 35 From: Richards, Jason R. To: "robiejennag@icloud.com" Subject: Re: Hi There Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:50:27 AM Feel free to reach out to me any time. Take care. Jason ----- Original Message -----From: Robert Giuffre <robiejennag@icloud.com> To: Richards, Jason R. Sent: Wed Aug 27 10:46:50 2014 Subject: Re: Hi There Thank you Jason. I hope all has been well for you and yours! All the best, I won't bother you again. Jenna Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 27, 2014, at 10:44 AM, "Richards, Jason R." <Jason.Richards2@ic.fbi.gov> wrote: > > Hi Jenna, > > My suggestion is for you to do a Freedom of Information Act request (www.foia.gov) for the information you are looking for because I am not able to release information (should there be any) from FBI records. You need to include as many details as possible so they can focus and narrow the search. Explain that you are looking for information related to your recovery as a victim of Ron Eppinger. The process may take some time but it is the appropriate method for you to obtain any possible records regarding your recovery. Hope this helps. > > Best wishes, > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Giuffre [mailto:robiejennag@icloud.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:49 AM > To: Richards, Jason R. > Subject: Hi There > > G'day Jason, > > I know I am a pain in your rear right now and I don't want to be but I am so close to wrapping up an era, just need a couple dates confirmed is all. > > If you aren't sure about the dates which you have already said that's fine. I have turned the Wilton Manors police dept upside down looking through records and come up w nada. What was your acquaintance's name that took my statement about Ron Eppinger? Is it possible that it wasn't Wilton Manors and maybe it was somewhere else? > > I'm really racking my brain about this!! It would be a personal favor to me and I am so very much appreciative of anything you might know!! GIUFFRE005608 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 35 > > Thanks a lot mate!! > > Jenna > > Sent from my iPhone GIUFFRE005609 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 35 From: Robert Giuffre To: Jason.Richards2@ic.fbi.gov Subject: Virginia Roberts(Jane doe 102) Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:50:31 AM Hi Jason, Long time, no talk. I hope all has been well for you and yours!! I am now back in the USA, not too many people know about that and I'd like to keep it that way as my case against Jeffrey Epstein has intensified!! I am here to get this BS non- prosecution agreement thrown out and speaking w Judge Paul Cassal he suggested trying to get ahold of any photos and/or video recordings released by the FBI to assist our case further in proving how much pedophilia occurred by Jeffrey and the many other monsters he obliged w underage girls. If this is a possibility please let me know so I can give you Brad Edwards( my attorney) his contact details. Many thanks for your time and I hope we should meet again. Kindest Regards, Virginia Roberts Phone 321-271-4948 Sent from my iPhone GIUFFRE005610 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 35 From: Robert Giuffre To: christina.pyror@ic.fbi.gov Subject: Virginia Roberts re: Jeffrey Epstein Case Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:52:05 PM Hi Christina, I was wondering if you remember me from Sydney Consulate, I am a victim in the investigation from the Jeffrey Epstein case and was wondering if you could tell me if I would be able to get ahold of any of the pics and/or videos that the FBI might have confiscated from any of Epstein's residences? Also can I ask if you might have any of the flight logs that include my name in them to be sent to me as well. It's all for evidential purposes and would prove a many of things to help my case. Kindest Regards, Virginia Roberts 321-271-4948 cell Sent from my iPhone GIUFFRE005611 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 35 From: sharonrikard@gmail.com on behalf of Sharon Rikard To: Virginia Giuffre Subject: Re: Victims Refuse Silence Date: Saturday, March 28, 2015 9:49:55 AM Hi Virginia, So sorry for the late response. Our organization currently works with survivors of sex trafficking provided continuing education, life skills and counseling. We will help with transportation and their basic necessities. Our ultimate goal is a home for domestic minor sex trafficking survivors. Our contact information is: doorstofreedom.com infor@doorstofreedom.com 843-817-0740 I am going to forward your information to our Attorney Generals office as Marie Sazehn has compiled a list of organizations in our state of people/organizations and their involvement in helping survivors. Thanks for all you are doing to help others! Blessings, Sharon Rikard GIUFFRE005612 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 35 From: Virginia Giuffre To: sharon@doorstofreedom.com Subject: Victims Refuse Silence Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:19:06 PM Hi Sharon, This is Virginia, we spoke earlier and I just wanted to say thank you for your time and what your doing to help the victims in your area. The mentality has to be changed!! Good luck!! Kindest Regards, Virginia Roberts Sent from my iPhone GIUFFRE005613 CONFIDENTIAL Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 1 2/12/2015 6:14 Virginia Giuffre smccawley@bsfllp.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards and Cassell re attorney impressions and legal advice relating to deposition testimony AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 2 2/16/2015 1:05 StanPottinger@aol.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br ad@pathtojustice.com,robie jennag@y7mail.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 3 2/16/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 4 2/16/2015 16:15 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 5 2/16/2015 16:24 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 6 2/16/2015 16:24 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and Edwards re information provided by client to assist in legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 7 2/21/2015 16:45 Sigrid McCawley StanPottinger@aol.com,bra d@pathtojustice.com,cassell p@law.utah.edu,robiejenna g@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 8 2/21/2015 16:58 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorney AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 9 2/21/2015 17:05 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com StanPottinger@aol.com,cassellp@l aw.utah.edu,robiejennag@y7mail.c om Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 10 2/21/2015 17:10 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorney AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 11 2/21/2015 17:16 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of evidence among client and attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 12 2/23/2015 14:21 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com,cassellp@law.utah. edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 13 2/23/2015 14:29 StanPottinger@aol.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com,cassellp@ law.utah.edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 14 2/23/2015 16:01 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com,cassellp@law.utah. edu Discussion of thoughts and impressions of attorneys AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 15 2/24/2015 17:51 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking information to assist in legal advice, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 16 Attached case research AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 14 rtf 17 2/26/2015 12:59 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and legal assistant re legal document, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 18 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 jfif 19 2/28/2015 17:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards and Henderson re discussion of draft statement AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 20 3/13/2015 17:29 Stan Pottinger robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 21 3/13/2015 17:49 Virginia Giuffre stanpottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 22 3/13/2015 17:56 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 23 3/13/2015 18:00 Brad Edwards StanPottinger@aol.com,robi ejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 24 3/13/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 25 3/13/2015 18:25 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 26 3/13/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,StanPotti nger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 27 3/13/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg 28 3/13/2015 23:40 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, McCawley, Henderson and Pottinger re legal advice on media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 29 3/17/2015 15:20 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br ad@pathtojustice.com,stan pottinger@aol.com Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential legal action, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 30 3/17/2015 18:40 Stan Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,br ad@pathtojustice.com,robie jennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 31 3/17/2015 19:42 Virginia Giuffre stanpottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 32 3/20/2015 15:43 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com,stan pottinger@aol.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com,brittany@path tojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 33 3/20/2015 15:57 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re potential deposition Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 34 3/24/2015 21:19 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 35 3/24/2015 21:21 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com aortiz@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 36 3/24/2015 21:36 Andres Ortiz Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 37 3/24/2015 22:21 Virginia Giuffre aortiz@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 3 msg 38 3/26/2015 2:00 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,StanPotti nger@aol.com,brad@pathtojustice .com,brittany@pathtojustice.com,e perez@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, Pottinger, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 39 3/26/2015 2:21 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 40 3/26/2015 2:22 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 41 3/26/2015 3:00 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 42 4/1/2015 21:32 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Giuffre conveying information sought by attorney to assist in legal advice with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 43 4/2/2015 7:01 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com eperez@BSFLLP.com Providing draft legal document for client review, with attachment Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 44 Attached Draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 15 pdf 45 4/3/2015 15:32 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com,eperez@ BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards and legal assistant re legal document, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 46 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest 15 pdf Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 47 4/8/2015 20:34 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Seeking legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 48 4/9/2015 3:23 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re advice re legal filings, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 49 4/9/2015 7:16 Sigrid McCawley StanPottinger@aol.com,bra d@pathtojustice.com,robiej ennag@y7mail.com brittany@pathtojustice.com,sperki ns@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Henderson, McCawley and BSF staff re legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 50 4/9/2015 9:26 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, and McCawley re legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 51 4/9/2015 9:33 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 52 4/9/2015 12:46 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 53 Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 14 docx 54 Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 12 docx 55 Conveying legal advice re draft legal documents to client, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 docx 56 4/10/2015 14:59 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com Providing legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 57 4/10/2015 15:37 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Regarding legal advice re media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 58 4/10/2015 17:31 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com,brittany@pathtojus tice.com,eperez@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Henderson, Edwards, Pottinger and legal assistant re legal documents, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 59 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 pdf Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 60 Attached draft legal document AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 21 pdf 61 4/10/2015 17:40 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 62 4/10/2015 19:10 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 63 4/10/2015 19:28 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 64 4/10/2015 19:33 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 65 4/10/2015 20:03 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 66 4/10/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 67 4/10/2015 20:04 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and BSF staff regarding legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 68 4/10/2015 23:46 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley legal assistant re seeking and providing information sought by attorney to assist in providing legal advice, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 69 4/13/2015 13:52 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com,brad@pat htojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re legal advice regarding potential public statements AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 70 4/13/2015 13:56 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, Pottinger, Edwards and McCawley re legal advice regarding media issues AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 3 msg 71 4/14/2015 23:38 Brad Edwards Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,bri ttany@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com,stan pottinger@aol.com Providing legal advice related to VRS Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 20 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 72 4/16/2015 11:14 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 73 4/16/2015 11:47 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 74 4/24/2015 19:22 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re records retention, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 75 Attached letter providing legal advice re document retention Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 pdf 76 4/24/2015 19:59 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re legal advice regarding potential deposition Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 77 4/27/2015 21:20 Brad Edwards robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Seeking information to assist in providing legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 21 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 78 4/30/2015 6:42 Brittany Henderson eperez@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m ail.com Legal documents provided to assist in providing legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 79 4/30/2015 7:02 Brittany Henderson robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson and paralegal re seeking and providing information to assist in providing legal advice Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 80 4/30/2015 7:05 Virginia Giuffre brittany@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 81 5/4/2015 20:04 Virginia Giuffre brittany@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, Henderson, Edwards, McCawley and legal assistant re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 82 5/11/2015 18:20 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger, Henderson and Paralegal re seeking and providing information to assist in legal advice, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 83 5/11/2015 18:34 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 84 5/11/2015 18:40 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re case research, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 22 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 85 5/11/2015 18:45 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re potential legal action, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 86 5/11/2015 18:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 87 5/11/2015 18:56 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and Paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 88 5/17/2015 22:37 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing litigation documents to client, with attachments Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 3 msg 89 Attached draft legal agreement AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 10 pdf 90 5/17/2015 22:40 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing legal advice re legal agreement, with attachment Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 91 5/18/2015 18:40 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Discussion of confidential agreement, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 23 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 92 Attached confidential agreement page Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 jfif 93 Attached confidential agreement page Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 jfif 94 6/5/2015 19:16 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Conveying attorney mental impression regarding hearing Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 95 6/6/2015 17:20 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re attorney mental impression regarding hearing Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 96 6/25/2015 2:26 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Providing advice re status and strategy of ongoing legal matters Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 6 msg 97 7/17/2015 14:19 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com eperez@BSFLLP.com Discussion with S. McCawley regarding file related to representation by B. Josefsberg Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 4 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 24 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 98 7/27/2015 21:53 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Providing information to assist in legal advice re potential litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 99 7/29/2015 19:45 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com StanPottinger@aol.com Conveying legal advice on media issues Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 100 8/5/2015 19:51 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley and paralegals re information sought to assist in providing legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 101 8/6/2015 2:14 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 102 8/6/2015 2:45 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern, Edwards and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 103 8/6/2015 2:55 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 104 8/6/2015 3:48 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com Email chain with McCawley, Giuffre, and Paralegals re seeking information to assist in legal advice, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 25 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 105 8/6/2015 3:51 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, legal intern and paralegal re seeking information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 106 9/1/2015 18:54 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com,brittany@ pathtojustice.com Providing and seeking information to assist in legal advice re potential legal action, with attachment AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 2 msg 107 9/7/2015 18:24 Virginia Giuffre brad@pathtojustice.com,sm ccawley@bsfllp.com,stanpot tinger@aol.com Providing information sought by attorneys to provide legal advice, with attachment Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 108 Attached Information sought by attorneys to provide legal advice AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 4 docx 109 9/7/2015 18:58 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,ro biejennag@y7mail.com,stan pottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre, Edwards, Pottinger and McCawley re collection of information to assist in providing legal advice re potential litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 110 9/15/2015 21:58 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 26 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 111 9/15/2015 22:04 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 112 9/15/2015 22:07 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 113 9/20/2015 12:15 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com brad@pathtojustice.com Conveying information about potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 114 9/20/2015 14:47 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 115 9/20/2015 19:16 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 116 9/20/2015 19:29 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 27 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 117 9/20/2015 19:30 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 msg 118 9/21/2015 14:48 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re initiation of lawsuit, with attachments AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 1 msg 119 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld 12 pdf 120 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 pdf 121 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 2 pdf 122 Attached draft legal document relating to litigation Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 3 pdf Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 28 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 123 9/21/2015 14:51 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re potential legal action. Attorney Client/joint defense/commo n interest/work product Withheld 1 msg 125 Emails, letters, and other communications from 2011 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson (and other , Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States ("CVRA case"), Case no. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the CVRA case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the CVRA case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the CVRA case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the CVRA case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 29 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 126 Emails, letters, and other communications from 9/21/15 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Giuffre v. Maxwell (“Maxwell case”), 15-cv-07433-RWS, pending in the Southern District of New York, since the date of filing, September 21, 2015. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Maxwell case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the Maxwell case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the Maxwell case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the Maxwell case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 30 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 127 Emails, letters, and other communications from January 2015 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and representation Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice and Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz case”), Case no. 15- 000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Dershowitz case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the Dershowitz case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the Dershowitz case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the Dershowitz case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 31 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 128 Emails, letters, and other communications from 2009 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi, other Podhurst attorneys, Legal Assistants, and Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Virginia Giuffre, Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi, other Podhurst attorneys, Legal Assistants, and Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein case”), Case No. 09-80656-CIV-Marra/Johnson (Southern District of Florida). Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the Epstein case, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the Epstein case, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to the Epstein case, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K docs overlapping with other cases 129 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley seeking information to assist with attorney advice. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 130 Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 26 pdf 131 4/30/2015 Brittany Henderson eperez@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,robiejennag@y7m ail.com Communication re VRS registrations AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 132 4/29/2015 Andres Ortiz bh699@nova.edu Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,garvin@lclark.edu, robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS communications. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 133 4/29/2015 brittany henderson aortiz@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brad@pa thtojustice.com,garvin@lclark.edu, robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re legal advice re VRS communications. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 32 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 134 4/17/2015 Paul Cassell brad@pathtojustice.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brittany @pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL P.com,robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 5 msg 135 4/17/2015 Sigrid McCawley brad@pathtojustice.com,cas sellp@law.utah.edu brittany@pathtojustice.com,eperez @BSFLLP.com,robiejennag@y7mail .com Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 4 msg 136 4/17/2015 Brad Edwards cassellp@law.utah.edu Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,brittany @pathtojustice.com,eperez@BSFLL P.com,robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Cassell, McCawley, Edwards, Garvin, Beloof, Henderson, Giuffre and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 4 msg 137 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg 138 2/26/2015 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Communication re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg 139 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 140 2/11/2016 Sigrid McCawley StanPottinger@aol.com,robi ejennag@y7mail.com Lcarlsen@BSFLLP.com,brad@patht ojustice.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 141 2/11/2016 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Lcarlsen@BSFLLP.com,Smccawley @BSFLLP.com,brad@pathtojustice. com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Edwards, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 142 2/9/2016 StanPottinger@aol.com robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 2 msg 143 Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 26 pdf 144 Letter from Virginia Giuffre to David Boies conveying requested information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 23 docx 145 6/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre robiejennag@y7mail.com Email chain with Giuffre and McCawley re ongoing litigation. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 146 4/29/2015 Virginia Giuffre aortiz@BSFLLP.com Smccawley@BSFLLP.com,bh699@n ova.edu,brad@pathtojustice.com,g arvin@lclark.edu Email chain with Henderson, McCawey, Edwards, Garvin and BSF staff re VRS communications. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 147 4/10/2015 Virginia Giuffre rebecca.boylan@yahoo.com Email chain with Boylan, Giuffre, McCawley, and BSF staff re legal advice re VRS registrations. Attorney Client Withheld 2 msg 148 2/26/2015 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email confirming legal advice re non-testifying expert. Attorney Client Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 33 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 149 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Giuffre and Pottinger re media communications Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 150 2/11/2015 Virginia Giuffre Smccawley@BSFLLP.com Email chain with Giuffre, McCawley, Pottinger and BSF staff re media communications. Attorney Client Redacted 3 msg 151 1/13/2015 Virginia Giuffre StanPottinger@aol.com Email chain with Pottinger and Giuffre re anticipated litigation. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 152 Emails, letters, and other communications from January 2015 - Present Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Virginia Giuffre, Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell, Brittany Henderson, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Schultz, David Boies, Stephen Zach, Stan Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Legal Assistants, Professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence re potential legal action against entities and individuals. Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted included communications from Ms. Giuffre to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to potential law suits, communications from the attorneys to Ms. Giuffre giving legal advice or giving attorney mental impressions related to the law suits, communications sending or attaching attorney work product related to potential lawsuits, and/or communications sending or attaching client revisions to attorney work product related to potential lawsuits, and communications re evidence. AC Privilege and Work Product/joint defense/commo n interest Withheld Approx. 1.3K overlapping with other cases Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 34 of 35 Log ID Email Sent Date Email From Email To CC Address Subject Matter Type of Privilege Privilege Action Page Count Doc Type 153 Email and letter communications The law enforcement entity, Virginia Giuffre, David Boies, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards The law enforcement entity, Virginia Giuffre, David Boies, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding correspondence re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of Defendant and others. Public Interest Withheld approx. 57 documents 154 8/27/2014 Virginia Giuffre Brad Edwards Email chain discussing efforts to obtain assistance from FBI agent in obtaining information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 155 8/27/2014 Virginia Giuffre Brad Edwards Email chain discussing efforts to obtain assistance from FBI agent in obtaining information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg 156 8/27/2014 Virginia Giuffre Brad Edwards Email chain discussing efforts to obtain assistance from FBI agent in obtaining information to assist in providing legal advice. AC Privilege and Work Product Withheld 1 msg Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Revised Supplemental Privilege Log dated June 9, 2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-39 Filed 01/03/24 Page 35 of 35 EXHIBIT N Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 19 United States District Court Southern District Of New York --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL F.R.C.P. 26(A)(1)(A) DISCLOSURES Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(A), Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell makes the following disclosures: I. IDENTITIES OF INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO HAVE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DISPUTED FACTS ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY IN THE PLEADINGS 1. Ghislaine Maxwell c/o Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. 150 E. 10th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 303-831-7364 LMenninger@HMFLaw.com Ms. Maxwell is the Defendant and may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including the events of 1999-2002 and the publication of statements in the press in 2011-2015. 2. Virginia Lee Roberts Giuffre c/o Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 .......................................... Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 19 2 Miami, Florida 33301 (954) 356-0011 smccawley@bsfllp.com Ms. Giuffre is the Plaintiff and has knowledge concerning the matters at issue in her Complaint, including the events of 1996-2015 and the publication of statements in the press in 2011-2015. 3. Kathy Alexander Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Alexander has knowledge about matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s whereabouts during 2000-2002 and her false claims concerning Defendant and others. 4. Miles Alexander Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Alexander has knowledge about matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s whereabouts during 2000-2002 and her false claims concerning Defendant and others. 5. James Michael Austrich 10108 NW 261 Terrace High Springs, Florida, 32643 Mr. Austrich has knowledge concerning matters at issue in the Complaint, including events of 1996-2002. 6. Philip Barden Devonshires Solicitors LLP 30 Finsbury Circus London, United Kingdom EC2M 7DT DX: 33856 Finsbury Square (020) 7628-7576 Philip.Barden@devonshires.co.uk Mr. Barden has knowledge concerning press statements by Plaintiff and Defendant in 2011-2015 at issue in this matter. 7. Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 19 3 8. David Boies Boies, Schiller, Flexner LLP 575 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 (212) 446-2300 Mr. Boies has knowledge concerning matters at issue in the Complaint and in Plaintiff’s pleadings and sworn statements in other litigations, including in particular her publicly filed allegations concerning Defendant and Alan Dershowitz. 9. Laura Boothe The Mar-a-Lago Club, LC. 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, FL 33480 Ms. Boothe has knowledge concerning matters at issue, including the date that Sky Roberts began working at the Mar-a-Lago Club, and the human resources department at Mar-A-Lago. 10. Evelyn Boulet Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Boulet may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 11. Rebecca Boylan Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Boylan has knowledge concerning Plaintiff during the relevant time period including claims for damages, motive and bias. 12. Joshua Bunner Address unknown at this time Joshua Bunner has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s credibility, including false claims of sexual assault. 13. Carolyn Casey Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 19 4 Ms. Casey may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 14. Paul Cassell 383 South University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 paul.cassell@law.utah.edu Mr. Cassell has knowledge concerning press statements by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s court pleadings, and Plaintiff’s sworn testimony. 15. Sharon Churcher 3 Deveau Road N. Salem, NY 10560 Ms. Churcher has knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s statements regarding Defendant and others. 16. Alexandra Cousteau Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Cousteau may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant and others. 17. Alan Dershowitz c/o Richard A. Simpson, Esq. WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 719-7000 Mr. Dershowitz has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false statements to the press, in court pleadings, and in sworn testimony, at issue in this matter. 18. Dr. Mona Devanesan PO Box 3250 601 E. Delmonte Avenue Clerwiston, FL 33440 (561) 254-2502 modev358@aol.com Dr. Devanesan has knowledge about matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s whereabouts during 2001 and her claimed damages. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 19 5 19. Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time 20. Bradley Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 brad@pathtojustice.com Mr. Edwards has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false statements to the press, in court pleadings, and in sworn testimony at issue in this matter. Mr. Edwards also has knowledge concerning “Victim’s Refuse Silence, Inc.” 21. Amanda Ellison Address unknown at this time 561-628-4338 Ms. Ellison has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false allegations concerning Defendant. 22. Cimberly Espinosa 1113 West Columbine Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92707 Ms. Espinosa has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false allegations concerning Defendant. 23. Jeffrey Epstein c/o Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 467-1223 Mr. Epstein has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false statements to the press and in court pleadings, as well as the events of 1999-2002 concerning Plaintiff and Defendant. 24. Annie Farmer Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 19 6 Ms. Farmer may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 25. Marie Farmer Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Farmer may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 26. Alexandra Fekkai Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Fekkai may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant and others. 27. Crystal Figueroa Address unknown at this time Ms. Figueroa may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002 28. Anthony Figueroa 38 Bunker View Drive Palm Coast, FL Mr. Figueroa has knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 29. Louis Freeh Address unknown at this time (202) 215-8321 Freeh@FreehGroup.com Mr. Freeh may have knowledge concerning travel of Bill Clinton. 30. Eric Gany Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Gany may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff whereabouts during 2000- 2002 and her false claims against Defendant. 31. Meg Garvin Lewis & Clark Law School Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 19 7 10015 S.W. Terwilliger Boulevard MSC 51 Portland, Oregon 97219 Ms. Garvin has knowledge concerning matters at issue including Victims Refuse Silence and Plaintiff’s damages. 32. Sheridan Gibson-Butte Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Gibson-Butte may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 33. Robert Giuffre Queensland, Australia Mr. Giuffre is may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 2002-2016 and her damages allegations. 34. Ross Gow Acuity Representation 23 Berkeley Square London W1J 6HE 44 (0) 777 875 5251 ross@acuityreputation.com Mr. Gow may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including the publication of statements in the press in 2011-2015 concerning Plaintiff and Defendant. 35. Fred Graff Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Graff may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 36. Philip Guderyon Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Guderyon may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 37. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 19 8 may have knowledge concerning matters at issue. 38. Shannon Harrison Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Harrison may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 39. Victoria Hazel Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Hazel may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 40. Brittany Henderson Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Ms. Henderson has knowledge concerning matters at issue including Victims Refuse Silence and Plaintiff’s damages. 41. Brett Jaffe Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Jaffe has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims concerning Ms. Maxwell including her compliance with any deposition subpoena in the CVRA matter. 42. Carol Roberts Kess Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Kess may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 43. Dr. Karen Kutikoff 12957 Palms W Drive #101 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 - Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 19 9 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Dr. Kutifkoff may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s whereabouts during 1998-2002 and Plaintiff’s damages. 44. Peter Listerman Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Listerman may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 45. Tony Lyons Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Mr. Lyons may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s false allegations concerning Defendant and others. 46. Bob Meister 101 Seminole Avenue, Palm Beach, FL 38480 (561) 650-0083 Mr. Meister may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 47. Jamie A. Melanson 5280 NW 53rd Ave. Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Mr. Melanson has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s honesty and truthfulness. 48. Lynn Miller 936 O Street Penrose, CO 81240 Ms. Miller may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 49. Marvin Minsky Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 19 10 Mr. Minsky may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant and others. 50. 51. David Mullen Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Mullen may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 52. Joe Pagano Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Pagano may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 53. Mary Paluga Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Paluga may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 54. J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 914-763-8333 Mr. Pottinger may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s attempts to sell her story to the media and her contacts with the media. 55. Joseph Recarey 2753 Misty Oaks Circle Royal Palm Beach, FL 33441 Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Recarey may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 19 11 56. Michael Reiter 2335 So. Ocean Blvd., Apt. 15 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Reiter may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 57. Jason Richards Federal Bureau of Investigations Address unknown at this time Mr. Richards has knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s statements concerning Defendant, Alan Dershowitz and other individuals. 58. Bill Richardson Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Richardson may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant and others. 59. Sky Roberts 15020 SE 47th Ave Summerfield, FL 34491-5141 Mr. Roberts may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 60. Scott Rothstein U.S. Bureau of Prisons Mr. Rothstein has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s civil claims against Jeffrey Epstein. 61. Forest Sawyer Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Sawyer may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 62. Doug Schoetlle Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 19 12 Mr. Schoettle may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 63. Cecilia Stein Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Stein may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 64. Mark Tafoya Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Tafoya may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 65. Brent Tindall Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time 66. Kevin Thompson Address unknown at this time Kevin Thompson has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s credibility, including false claims of sexual assault. 67. Ed Tuttle Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Tuttle may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 68. Emma Vaghan Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Vaghan may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 69. Kimberly Vaughan-Edwards Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Believed to be in the UK Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 19 13 Ms. Vaughan-Edwards has knowledge concerning facts relevant to this dispute and Ms. Maxwell’s character. 70. Cresenda Valdes Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Valdes may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 71. Anthony Valladares Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Valladares may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 72. Maritza Vazquez Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Vazquez may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 73. Vicky Ward Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Ms. Ward may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 74. Jarred Weisfeld Address unknown at this time Mr. Weisfeld may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s attempted publication of false allegations concerning Defendant and others. 75. Courtney Wild Pinellas County Jail Ms. Wild may have knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false claims against Defendant. 76. Daniel Wilson Address unknown at this time Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 19 14 Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Wilson may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff’s activities during 1996 – 2002. 77. Andrew Albert Christian Edwards, Duke of York Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time The Duke has knowledge concerning Plaintiff’s false statements to the press, in court pleadings, and in sworn testimony as well as the events of 1999-2002. 78. Witnessed identified by Plaintiff in any of the various versions of her Rule 26 disclosures. 79. Witnesses whose identities and contact information can be identified in law enforcement reports disclosed herein. 80. Any other witness learned through the discovery process. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell reserves her right to supplement these disclosures as additional witnesses are learned through the discovery process, or endorsed by Plaintiff. II. DOCUMENTS, DATA, COMPILATIONS AND TANGIBLE THINGS IN POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF DEFENDANT THAT MAY BE USED TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT’S CLAIM OR DEFENSES 1. Documents received from any other party through disclosures and/or in discovery, including any deposition exhibits, will not be identified or produced, though they technically may fall within this category “II”, and Defendant reserves the right to utilize such documents at any hearing or trial on this matter. 2. News articles from the internet: a. “Sordid friends and why he isn't fit for the job: Duke of York risks losing ambassador role,” Daily Mail Online (Feb. 28, 2011). b. “Prince Andrew and the 17-year-old girl his sex offender friend flew to Britain to meet him,” Daily Mail Online (corrected Mar. 2, 2011). c. “Unsavoury association: How Robert Maxwell's daughter 'procured young girls' for Prince Andrew's billionaire friend,” Daily Mail Online (Mar. 5, 2011). Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 19 15 d. “Virginia Roberts' account of the explosive Prince Andrew 'sex slave' drama,” Daily Mail Online (Jan. 3, 2015). e. “Court papers put daughter of Robert Maxwell at centre of ‘sex slave’ scandal,” The Guardian (Jan. 4, 2015). f. “Prince Andrew denies sexual abuse allegations in unprecedented Buckingham Palace statement: The Duke of York denies having relations with alleged ‘sex slave,’” The Independent (Jan. 4, 2015). g. “Prince Andrew story runs and runs - but editors should beware,” The Guardian (Jan. 5, 2015). h. “US lawyer sues in Prince Andrew sex claims case,” Time (Jan 6, 2015). i. “Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz denies charges of sex with underage girl,” Boston Globe (Jan. 22, 2015). j. “Virginia Roberts’s Aunt Reveals Jeffrey Epstein Girl Says I Am In Fear for My Life,” Daily Mail Online, (Jan. 10, 2015). k. “EXCLUSIVE: Alleged ‘sex slave’ of Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew accused two men of rape in 1998, but was found not credible,” NY Daily News (Feb. 23, 2015). l. “Jeffrey Epstein accuser was not a sex slave, but a money-hungry sex kitten, her former friends say,” NY Daily News (Mar. 1, 2015). m. “Twat Claims She Was Underage Sex Slave Bedding Prince Andrew,” http://www.mgtowhq.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6676 (Jan. 5, 2015). n. “Exclusive: Prince Andrew at Heidi Klum’s ‘Hookers and Pimps’ party with the New York socialite accused of procuring underage girls for his billionaire pedophile friend” Daily Mail Online (May 10, 2016). 3. Email from Ross Gow to various news organizations, Subject: “Ghislaine Maxwell,” (Jan. 2, 2015). 4. “Lawyers Acknowledge Mistake In Filing Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Professor Dershowitz,” Joint Statement of Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz (Apr. 8, 2016). 5. Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District In and For Broward County Florida to include: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 19 16 a. Deposition testimony of Paul G. Cassell, dated October 16, 2015 and October 17, 2015. 6. Jane Doe #1 and #2 v. United States, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 08-cv-80736-KAM pleadings to include: a. Motion for Limited Appearance, Consent to Designation and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing (July 28, 2008) (Doc. # 16) b. Notice of Change of Address and Firm Affiliation (Apr. 9, 2009) (Doc. # 37) c. Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion to Join Under Rule 21 and Motion to Amend Under Rule 15 (Apr. 7, 2015) (Doc. #324) d. Order Scheduling Settlement Conference Before the Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court (Mar. 31, 2016) (Doc. #378) 7. Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards, In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, 09-ca￾040800, pleadings to include: a. Complaint (Dec. 7, 2009). 8. Law enforcement records obtained from the Palm Beach County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office, the Royal Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department, the County Court in and for Palm Beach County (Florida), the Greenacres (Florida) Department of Public Safety, and the Fremont County (Colorado) Sheriff’s Office. 9. Employment records obtained from ET Employment Training and Recruiting Australia. 10. Education records obtained from Royal Palm Beach Community High School and Forest Hills High School. 11. Documents received from Palm Beach County Library System. 12. Documents received from any other party through disclosures and/or in discovery, including any deposition exhibits, will not be identified or produced, though they technically may fall within this category “II”, and Defendant reserves the right to utilize such documents at any hearing or trial on this matter. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 17 of 19 17 Defendant reserves the right to identify additional documents, data, compilations and tangible things as discovery continues and to supplement this list accordingly. III. DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES SOUGHT AND COMPUTATION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE DISCLOSING PARTY Not applicable at this time Ms. Maxwell reserves her right to supplement these disclosures as necessary. IV. INSURANCE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH ANY PERSON CARRYING ON AN INSURANCE BUSINESS MAY BE LIABLE TO SATISFY A PART OR ALL OF A JUDGMENT Ms. Maxwell’s AIG Homeowners and Excess Liability insurance policies. Coverage has been denied by AIG, as their letter of April 18, 2016 to Ms. Maxwell, copied to Ms. McCawley, attests. Dated: June 17, 2016. Respectfully submitted, s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 18 of 19 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 17, 2016, I electronically served this DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL F.R.C.P. 26(A)(1) DISCLOSURES via e-mail on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com s/ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1320-40 Filed 01/03/24 Page 19 of 19